Delayed specific IgM antibody responses observed among COVID-19 patients with severe progression

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response Among Spectators of Amir Cup 2020 With a History of Recovery From COVID-19 in Qatar: A Historic Cohort Study

Aim The aim of the study is to describe the antibody response after COVID-19 infection and assess its effectiveness against reinfection. Background COVID-19 has recently emerged as a contagious infectious disease caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This infection is followed by a humoral immune antibody response, which may remain in the blood for a number of weeks. Studies have shown that antibodies protect against reinfection for at least seven months. The current study is aimed at investigating the persistence of circulating SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after COVID-19 infection and its behavior over 18 months of follow-up period, in addition to assessing the risk of reinfection of COVID-19 in unvaccinated individuals. Methodology A longitudinal historical cohort study of 3378 COVID-19 recovered individuals in connection with the Amir Cup football tournament held in Qatar, in December 2020 was analyzed. The health records of study participants were followed for a maximum of 18 months after serology testing or until the first dose of COVID-19 vaccination to detect any evidence of recurrent infection. Results The study found a statistically significant association between recurrence risk and the duration of risk exposure since the first COVID-19 episode. Compared to those with the lowest risk of exposure to reinfection (shortest duration after first infection) those beyond 299 days of at-risk exposure since the first episode, have a 51-fold higher risk of developing recurrent COVID-19. Conclusion Immunity developed after primary infection with SARS-CoV-2 may protect against reinfection from subsequent exposure to the virus in seropositive individuals up to nine months post-infection.

Emerging perspectives on RNA virus-mediated infections: from pathogenesis to therapeutic interventions

RNA viruses continue to pose significant threats to global public health, necessitating a profound understanding of their pathogenic mechanisms and the development of effective therapeutic interventions. This manuscript provides a comprehensive overview of emerging perspectives on RNA virus-mediated infections, spanning from the intricate intricacies of viral pathogenesis to the forefront of innovative therapeutic strategies. A critical exploration of antiviral drugs sets the stage, highlighting the diverse classes of compounds that target various stages of the viral life cycle, underscoring the ongoing efforts to combat viral infections. Central to this discussion is the exploration of RNA-based therapeutics, with a spotlight on messenger RNA (mRNA)-based approaches that have revolutionized the landscape of antiviral interventions. Furthermore, the manuscript delves into the intricate world of delivery systems, exploring inno-vative technologies designed to enhance the efficiency and safety of mRNA vaccines. By analyzing the challenges and advancements in delivery mechanisms, this review offers a roadmap for future research and development in this critical area. Beyond conventional infectious diseases, the document explores the expanding applications of mRNA vaccines, including their promising roles in cancer immunotherapy and personalized medicine approaches. This manuscript serves as a valuable resource for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers alike, offering a nuanced perspective on RNA virus pathogenesis and the cutting-edge therapeutic interventions. By synthesizing the latest advancements and challenges, this review contributes significantly to the ongoing discourse in the field, driving the development of novel strategies to combat RNA virus-mediated infections effectively.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses associate with sex, age and disease severity in previously uninfected people admitted to hospital with COVID-19: An ISARIC4C prospective study

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic enables the analysis of immune responses induced against a novel coronavirus infecting immunologically naïve individuals. This provides an opportunity for analysis of immune responses and associations with age, sex and disease severity. Here we measured an array of solid-phase binding antibody and viral neutralising Ab (nAb) responses in participants (n=337) of the ISARIC4C cohort and characterised their correlation with peak disease severity during acute infection and early convalescence. Overall, the responses in a Double Antigen Binding Assay (DABA) for antibody to the receptor binding domain (anti-RBD) correlated well with IgM as well as IgG responses against viral spike, S1 and nucleocapsid protein (NP) antigens. DABA reactivity also correlated with nAb. As we and others reported previously, there is greater risk of severe disease and death in older men, whilst the sex ratio was found to be equal within each severity grouping in younger people. In older males with severe disease (mean age 68 years), peak antibody levels were found to be delayed by one to two weeks compared with women, and nAb responses were delayed further. Additionally, we demonstrated that solid-phase binding antibody responses reached higher levels in males as measured via DABA and IgM binding against Spike, NP and S1 antigens. In contrast, this was not observed for nAb responses. When measuring SARS-CoV-2 RNA transcripts (as a surrogate for viral shedding) in nasal swabs at recruitment, we saw no significant differences by sex or disease severity status. However, we have shown higher antibody levels associated with low nasal viral RNA indicating a role of antibody responses in controlling viral replication and shedding in the upper airway. In this study, we have shown discernible differences in the humoral immune responses between males and females and these differences associate with age as well as with resultant disease severity.

Longitudinal Characterization of a Neutralizing and Total Antibody Response in Patients with Severe COVID-19 and Fatal Outcomes

The host immune response to SARS-CoV-2 appears to play a critical role in disease pathogenesis and clinical manifestations in severe COVID-19 cases. Until now, the importance of developing a neutralizing antibody response in the acute phase and its relationship with progression to severe disease or fatal outcome among hospitalized patients remains unclear. In this study, we aim to characterize and compare longitudinally the primary humoral immune host response in the early stages of the disease, looking for an association between neutralization, antibody titers, infective viral lineage, and the clinical outcome in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. A total of 111 patients admitted at INER from November 2021 to June 2022 were included. We found that patients with negative or low neutralization showed a significant reduction in survival probability compared to patients with medium or high neutralization. We observed a significant decrease in the median of neutralization in patients infected with viral variants with changes in RBD of the spike protein. Our results suggest that developing an early and robust neutralizing response against SARS-CoV-2 may increase survival probability in critical patients.

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.

Duration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA positivity from various specimens and clinical characteristics in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The duration of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA positivity will be important to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA to determine the duration from several parts of the body and clinical characteristics affecting it.

MAIN TEXT

PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and CENTRAL were searched for original studies reporting the duration from COVID-19 onset to the disappearance of viral RNA. Of the 1682 studies identified, 100 met the selection criteria and 13,431 patients were included in this study. The duration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA positivity was 18.29 [95% confidence interval: 17.00-19.89] days in the upper respiratory tract samples, 23.79 [20.43-27.16] days in the sputum, 14.60 [12.16-17.05] days in the blood, and 22.38 [18.40-26.35] days in the stool. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the duration was positively correlated with age, comorbidities, severity, and usage of glucocorticoid. Subgroup analysis indicated that the presence or absence of complications had the greatest impact on the difference in DSRP.

CONCLUSIONS

The duration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA positivity was 18.29 days in the upper respiratory tract samples. The duration in the sputum and the stool was longer, while that in the blood was shorter. The duration in the upper respiratory tract samples was longer in older, with any comorbidities, severer, and treated with glucocorticoid. These results provide the basic data for the duration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA positivity, and in the future, the effect of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and the SARS-CoV-2 variants on the duration of RNA positivity should be assessed.

Efficacy of POC Antibody Assays after COVID-19 Infection and Potential Utility for "Immunity Passports"

OBJECTIVE

Numerous manufacturers market lateral flow assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, but there are many questions about the reliability and efficacy of these tests.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Serum specimens from 60 individuals were analyzed using 2 lateral flow antibody assays, an in-house enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG chemiluminescent immunoassay.

RESULTS

The BioMedomics and Premier Biotech lateral flow assays were positive for IgM in 73.3% and 70% and for IgG in 80% and 73.3% of specimens, respectively. The ELISA assay was positive for IgM and IgG in 73.3% and 86.7% of specimens from infected individuals, whereas the Abbott assay was positive in 80%. The specificities of the 4 assays ranged from 96.7% to 100% for IgM and from 93.3% to 100% for IgG.

CONCLUSION

Results of the 2 lateral flow assays were comparable to those of the ELISA and Abbott assays. Assay efficacy depended on length of time after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

A microfluidic cell chip for virus isolation via rapid screening for permissive cells

Virus identification is a prerequisite not only for the early diagnosis of viral infectious diseases but also for the effective prevention of epidemics. Successful cultivation is the gold standard for identifying a virus, according to the Koch postulates. However, this requires screening for a permissive cell line, which is traditionally time-, reagent- and labor-intensive. Here, a simple and easy-to-operate microfluidic chip, formed by seeding a variety of cell lines and culturing them in parallel, is reported for use in virus cultivation and virus-permissive host-cell screening. The chip was tested by infection with two known viruses, enterovirus 71 (EV71) and influenza virus H1N1. Infection with EV71 and H1N1 caused significant cytopathic effects (CPE) in RD and MDCK cells, respectively, demonstrating that virus cultivation based on this microfluidic cell chip can be used as a substitute for the traditional plate-based culture method and reproduce the typical CPE caused by virus infection. Using this microfluidic cell chip method for virus cultivation could make it possible to identify an emerging virus in a high-throughput, automatic, and unprecedentedly fast way.

•

A simple microfluidic chip for tandem culture of different cell lines is achieved.

•

The cell chip has been used for permissive cell screening and culture of viruses.

•

The cell chip has advantages of being sample-, reagent-, and time-saving.

•

The cell chip system holds potential for high-throughput and automated screening.

Temperature-adjustable F-carbon nanofiber/carbon fiber nanocomposite fibrous masks with excellent comfortability and anti-pathogen functionality

Wearing surgical masks remains the most effective protective measure against COVID-19 before mass vaccination, but insufficient comfortability and low antibacterial/antiviral activities accelerate the replacement frequency of surgical masks, resulting in large amounts of medical waste. To solve this problem, we report new nanofiber membrane masks with outstanding comfortability and anti-pathogen functionality prepared using fluorinated carbon nanofibers/carbon fiber (F-CNFs/CF). This was used to replace commercial polypropylene (PP) nonwovens as the core layer of face masks. The through-plane and in-plane thermal conductivity of commercial PP nonwovens were only 0.12 and 0.20 W/m K, but the F-CNFs/CF nanofiber membranes reached 0.62 and 5.23 W/m K, which represent enhancements of 380% and 2523%, respectively. The surface temperature of the PP surgical masks was 23.9 ℃ when the wearing time was 15 min, while the F-CNFs/CF nanocomposite fibrous masks reached 27.3 ℃, displaying stronger heat dissipation. Moreover, the F-CNFs/CF nanofiber membranes displayed excellent electrical conductivity and produced a high-temperature layer that killed viruses and bacteria in the masks. The surface temperature of the F-CNFs/CF nanocomposite fibrous masks reached 69.2 ℃ after being connected to a portable power source for 60 s. Their antibacterial rates were 97.9% and 98.6% against E. coli and S. aureus, respectively, after being connected to a portable power source for 30 min.

Testing Antigens, Antibodies, and Immune Cells in COVID-19 as a Public Health Topic—Experience and Outlines

The current COVID-19 pandemic has triggered an accelerated pace in all research domains, including reliable diagnostics methodology. Molecular diagnostics of the virus and its presence in biological samples relies on the RT-PCR method, the most used and validated worldwide. Nonconventional tests with improved parameters that are in the development stages will be presented, such as droplet digital PCR or CRISPR-based assays. These molecular tests were followed by rapid antigen testing along with the development of antibody tests, whether based on ELISA platform or on a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay. Less-conventional methods of testing antibodies (e.g., lateral flow immunoassay) are presented as well. Left somewhere in the backstage of COVID-19 research, immune cells and, furthermore, immune memory cells, are gaining the spotlight, more so in the vaccination context. Recently, methodologies using flow-cytometry evaluate circulating immune cells in infected/recovered patients. The appearance of new virus variants has triggered a surge for tests improvement. As the pandemic has entered an ongoing or postvaccination era, all methodologies that are used to monitor public health focus on diagnostic strategies and this review points out where gaps should be filled in both clinical and research settings.

A 1-minute blood test detects decreased immune function and increased clinical risk in COVID-19 patients

Upon infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, most people will develop no or mild symptoms. However, a small percentage of the population will become severely ill, and some will succumb to death. The clinical severity of COVID-19 has a close connection to the dysregulation of the patient's immune functions. We previously developed a simple, nanoparticle-enabled blood test that can determine the humoral immune status in animals. In this study, we applied this new test to analyze the immune function in relation to disease severity in COVID-19 patients. From the testing of 153 COVID-19 patient samples and 142 negative controls, we detected a drastic decrease of humoral immunity in COVID-19 patients who developed moderate to severe symptoms, but not in patients with no or mild symptoms. The new test may be potentially used to monitor the immunity change and predict the clinical risk of patients with COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 immunity and functional recovery of COVID-19 patients 1-year after infection

The long-term immunity and functional recovery after SARS-CoV-2 infection have implications in preventive measures and patient quality of life. Here we analyzed a prospective cohort of 121 recovered COVID-19 patients from Xiangyang, China at 1-year after diagnosis. Among them, chemiluminescence immunoassay-based screening showed 99% (95% CI, 98-100%) seroprevalence 10-12 months after infection, comparing to 0.8% (95% CI, 0.7-0.9%) in the general population. Total anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibodies remained stable since discharge, while anti-RBD IgG and neutralization levels decreased over time. A predictive model estimates 17% (95% CI, 11-24%) and 87% (95% CI, 80-92%) participants were still 50% protected against detectable and severe re-infection of WT SARS-CoV-2, respectively, while neutralization levels against B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants were significantly reduced. All non-severe patients showed normal chest CT and 21% reported COVID-19-related symptoms. In contrast, 53% severe patients had abnormal chest CT, decreased pulmonary function or cardiac involvement and 79% were still symptomatic. Our findings suggest long-lasting immune protection after SARS-CoV-2 infection, while also highlight the risk of immune evasive variants and long-term consequences for COVID-19 survivors.

Rapid antibody diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 adaptive immune response

The emergence of a pandemic scale respiratory illness (COVID-19: coronavirus disease 2019) and the lack of the world's readiness to prevent its spread resulted in an unprecedented rise of biomedical diagnostic industries, as they took lead to provide efficient diagnostic solutions for COVID-19. However, these circumstances also led to numerous emergency use authorizations without appropriate evaluation that compromised standards, which could result in a larger than usual number of false-positive or false-negative results, leading to unwanted ambiguity in already confusing realities of the pandemic-hit closures of the world economy. This review is aimed at comparing the claimed or reported clinical sensitivity and clinical specificity of commercially available rapid antibody diagnostics with independently evaluated clinical performance results of the tests. Thereby, we not only present the types of modern antibody diagnostics and their working principles but summarize their experimental evaluations and observed clinical efficiencies to highlight the research, development, and commercialization issues with future challenges. Still, it must be emphasized that the serological or antibody tests do not serve the purpose of early diagnosis but are more suitable for epidemiology and screening populaces with an active immune response, recognizing convalescent plasma donors, and determining vaccine efficacy.

Effect of mutation and vaccination on spread, severity, and mortality of COVID-19 disease

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has had different waves within the same country. The spread rate and severity showed different properties within the COVID‐19 different waves. The present work aims to compare the spread and the severity of the different waves using the available data of confirmed COVID‐19 cases and death cases. Real‐data sets collected from the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science were used to perform a comparative study between COVID‐19 different waves in 12 countries with the highest total performed tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 detection in the world (Italy, Brazil, Japan, Germany, Spain, India, USA, UAE, Poland, Colombia, Turkey, and Switzerland). The total number of confirmed cases and death cases in different waves of COVID‐19 were compared to that of the previous one for equivalent periods. The total number of death cases in each wave was presented as a percentage of the total number of confirmed cases for the same periods. In all the selected 12 countries, Wave 2 had a much higher number of confirmed cases than that in Wave 1. However, the death cases increase was not comparable with that of the confirmed cases to the extent that some countries had lower death cases than in Wave 1, UAE, and Spain. The death cases as a percentage of the total number of confirmed cases in Wave 1 were much higher than that in Wave 2. Some countries have had Waves 3 and 4. Waves 3 and 4 have had lower confirmed cases than Wave 2, however, the death cases were variable in different countries. The death cases in Waves 3 and 4 were similar to or higher than Wave 2 in most countries. Wave 2 of COVID‐19 had a much higher spread rate but much lower severity resulting in a lower death rate in Wave 2 compared with that of the first wave. Waves 3 and 4 have had lower confirmed cases than Wave 2; that could be due to the presence of appropriate treatment and vaccination. However, that was not reflected in the death cases, which were similar to or higher than Wave 2 in most countries. Further studies are needed to explain these findings.

A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study of the Performance of the Widal Test and the Typhidot Immunoassay for Typhoid Fever Diagnosis in the West Region of Cameroon

Background

The diagnosis of typhoid fever based on the Widal slide agglutination test remains a major hurdle in developing countries due to varied perceptions of the value of the Widal test in determining clinical decision-making. We undertook a study to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Widal test and the Typhidot immunoassay in patients suspected of having typhoid fever in the Menoua division, West Region of Cameroon.

Methods

Blood and stool samples were collected from 558 consenting febrile patients on the basis of suspicion of typhoid fever. These patients attended three district health services of the Menoua division between April 2018 and September 2019. These patients had clinical symptoms suggestive of typhoid fever as determined by their consultant. Serum was used for the Widal slide agglutination test and for the Typhidot rapid immunoassay test based on manufacturer's guidelines. A composite reference of fever plus positive coproculture for Salmonella typhi and Salmonella paratyphi was used as the reference. The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the positive and negative tests were calculated as well as Cohen's kappa for agreement between the two tests.

Results

Of 558 patients, 12.90% tested positive for the reference method, 57.17% tested positive for the Widal slide agglutination test, while 15.59% were positive for Typhidot-IgM. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the positive and negative tests were 80.56%, 94.03%, 66.6%, and 97.03% for Typhidot-IgM and 94.44%, 48.35%, 21.32%, and 98.33% for the Widal slide agglutination test, respectively. Cohen's kappa estimates were 0.1660 (0.121–0.211) and 0.386 (0.312–0.460) for the Widal test and Typhidot immunoassay for 53.6% and 76.16% agreements of all observations, respectively.

Conclusion

The Widal test was found to have a lower predictive value for the diagnosis of typhoid fever in our setting. However, the Typhidot test, although better, was not ideal. Diagnosis of typhoid fever should therefore rely on adequate clinical suspicion and a positive Typhidot test to improve the clinical management of typhoid fever in our setting.

COVID‑19 vaccination and IgG and IgA antibody dynamics in healthcare workers

Given the current outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19) and the development and implementation of mass vaccination, data are being obtained by analyzing vaccination campaigns. In the present study, 69 healthcare workers who were exposed to patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‑2 were monitored for specific immunoglobulin (Ig)G and IgA levels at different time periods. Prior to vaccination, after the first round of vaccination at 21 days (when the second dose of vaccine was administrated) and 24 days after the second round of vaccination, with an mRNA‑based vaccine. The basal IgG and IgA levels in previously infected subjects and non‑infected subjects notably differed. Vaccination increased the IgG and IgA levels after the first dose in most subjects from both groups, the levels of which further increased following the second round of vaccination. The associations between IgG and IgA levels following the first and second rounds of vaccination demonstrated that in the entire vaccination group, regardless of prior exposure to the infectious agent, the increment and levels of IgG and IgA were similar. Thus, the levels upon vaccination were statistically similar irrespective of the starting base line prior to vaccination. In the present study, seroconversion was achieved in all subjects following the second round of vaccination, with similar antibodies levels.

The next-generation coronavirus diagnostic techniques with particular emphasis on the SARS-CoV-2

The potential zoonotic coronaviruses (SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2) are of global health concerns. Early diagnosis is the milestone in their mitigation, control, and eradication. Many diagnostic techniques are showing great success and have many advantages, such as the rapid turnover of the results, high accuracy, and high specificity and sensitivity. However, some of these techniques have several pitfalls if samples were not collected, processed, and transported in the standard ways and if these techniques were not practiced with extreme caution and precision. This may lead to false-negative/positive results. This may affect the downstream management of the affected cases. These techniques require regular fine-tuning, upgrading, and optimization. The continuous evolution of new strains and viruses belong to the coronaviruses is hampering the success of many classical techniques. There are urgent needs for next generations of coronaviruses diagnostic assays that overcome these pitfalls. This new generation of diagnostic tests should be able to do simultaneous, multiplex, and high-throughput detection of various coronavirus in one reaction. Furthermore, the development of novel assays and techniques that enable the in situ detection of the virus on the environmental samples, especially air, water, and surfaces, should be given considerable attention in the future. These approaches will have a substantial positive impact on the mitigation and eradication of coronaviruses, including the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Practical guidance for clinical laboratories for SARS-CoV-2 serology testing

The landscape of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic testing is rapidly evolving. While serology testing has limited diagnostic capacity for acute infection, its role in providing population-based information on positivity rates and informing evidence-based decision making for public health recommendations is increasing. With the global availability of vaccines, there is increasing pressure on clinical laboratories to provide antibody screening and result interpretation for vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals. Here we present the most up-to-date data on SARS-CoV-2 antibody timelines, including the longevity of antibodies, and the production and detection of neutralizing antibodies. Additionally, we provide practical guidance for clinical microbiology laboratories to both verify commercial serology assays and choose appropriate testing algorithms for their local populations.

Back to basics in COVID-19: Antigens and antibodies-Completing the puzzle

The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has gathered 1 year of scientific/clinical information. This informational asset should be thoroughly and wisely used in the coming year colliding in a global task force to control this infection. Epidemiology of this infection shows that the available estimates of SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence largely depended on the availability of molecular testing and the extent of tested population. Within molecular diagnosis, the viability and infectiousness of the virus in the tested samples should be further investigated. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 has a genetic normal evolution that is a dynamic process. The immune system participates to the counterattack of the viral infection by pathogen elimination, cellular homoeostasis, tissue repair and generation of memory cells that would be reactivated upon a second encounter with the same virus. In all these stages, we still have knowledge to be gathered regarding antibody persistence, protective effects and immunological memory. Moreover, information regarding the intense pro-inflammatory action in severe cases still lacks and this is important in stratifying patients for difficult to treat cases. Without being exhaustive, the review will cover these important issues to be acknowledged to further advance in the battle against the current pandemia.

Circulating Calprotectin as a Biomarker of COVID-19 Severity

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Although demographic and clinical parameters such as sex, age, comorbidities, genetic background and various biomarkers have been identified as risk factors, there is an unmet need to predict the risk and onset of severe inflammatory disease leading to poor clinical outcomes. In addition, very few mechanistic biomarkers are available to inform targeted treatment of severe (auto)-inflammatory conditions associated with COVID-19. Calprotectin, also known as S100A8/S100A9, MRP8/14 (Myeloid-Related Protein) or L1, is a heterodimer involved in neutrophil-related inflammatory processes. In COVID-19 patients, calprotectin levels were reported to be associated with poor clinical outcomes such as significantly reduced survival time, especially in patients with severe pulmonary disease.

AREAS COVERED

Pubmed was searched using the following keywords: Calprotectin + COVID19, S100A8/A9 + COVID19, S100A8 + COVID-19, S100A9 + COVID-19, MRP8/14 + COVID19; L1 + COVID-19 between May 2020 and 8 March 2021. The results summarized in this review provide supporting evidence and propose future directions that define calprotectin as an important biomarker in COVID-19.

EXPERT OPINION

Calprotectin represents a promising serological biomarker for the risk assessment of COVID-19 patients.

Comparative analysis of three point-of-care lateral flow immunoassays for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: data from 100 healthcare workers in Brazil

Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Brazil has the third-highest number of confirmed cases and the second-highest number of recovered patients. SARS-CoV-2 detection by real-time RT-PCR is the gold standard but requires a certified laboratory infrastructure with high-cost equipment and trained personnel. However, for large-scale testing, diagnostics should be fast, cost-effective, widely available, and deployed for the community, such as serological tests based on lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) for IgM/IgG detection. We evaluated three different commercial point-of-care (POC) LFIAs for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG detection in capillary whole blood of 100 healthcare workers (HCW) from São Paulo university hospital previously tested by RT-PCR: (1) COVID-19 IgG/IgM BIO (Bioclin, Brazil), (2) Diagnostic Kit for IgM/IgG Antibody to Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) (Livzon, China), and (3) SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test (Wondfo, China). A total of 84 positives and 16 negatives HCW were tested. The data was also analyzed by the number of days post symptoms (DPS) in three groups: <30 (n=26), 30–59 (n=42), and >59 (n=16). The observed sensibility was 85.71%, 47.62%, and 44.05% for Bioclin, Wondfo, and Livzon, respectively, with a specificity of 100% for all LFIA. Bioclin was more sensitive (p<0.01), regardless of the DPS. Thus, the Bioclin may be used as a POC test to monitor SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion in HCW.

Distinct SARS-CoV-2 antibody reactivity patterns in coronavirus convalescent plasma revealed by a coronavirus antigen microarray

A coronavirus antigen microarray (COVAM) was constructed containing 11 SARS-CoV-2, 5 SARS-1, 5 MERS, and 12 seasonal coronavirus recombinant proteins. The array is designed to measure immunoglobulin isotype and subtype levels in serum or plasma samples against each of the individual antigens printed on the array. We probed the COVAM with COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) collected from 99 donors who recovered from a PCR+ confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The results were analyzed using two computational approaches, a generalized linear model (glm) and random forest (RF) prediction model, to classify individual specimens as either Reactive or non-reactive against the SARS-CoV-2 antigens. A training set of 88 pre-COVID-19 specimens (PreCoV) collected in August 2019 and102 positive specimens from SARS-CoV-2 PCR+ confirmed COVID-19 cases was used for these analyses. Results compared with an FDA emergency use authorized (EUA) SARS-CoV2 S1-based total Ig chemiluminescence immunoassay (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total, CoV2T) and with a SARS-CoV-2 S1-S2 spike-based pseudovirus micro neutralization assay (SARS-CoV-2 reporter viral particle neutralization titration (RVPNT) showed high concordance between the three assays. Three CCP specimens that were negative by the VITROS CoV2T immunoassay were also negative by both COVAM and the RVPNT assay. Concordance between VITROS CoV2T and COVAM was 96%, VITROS CoV2T and RVPNT 93%, and RVPNT and COVAM 91%. The discordances were all weakly reactive samples near the cutoff threshold of the VITROS CoV2T immunoassay. The multiplex COVAM allows CCP to be grouped according to antibody reactivity patterns against 11 SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Unsupervised K-means analysis, via the gap statistics, as well as hierarchical clustering analysis revealed three main clusters with distinct reactivity intensities and patterns. These patterns were not recapitulated by adjusting the VITROS CoV2T or RVPNT assay thresholds. Plasma classified by COVAM reactivity patterns offers potential to improve CCP therapeutic efficacy CoV2T alone. The use of a SARS-CoV-2 antigen array can qualify CCP for administration as a treatment for acute COVID-19, and interrogate vaccine immunogenicity and performance in preclinical, clinical studies, and routine vaccination to identify antibody responses predictive of protection from infection and disease.

Effect of self-assembly on fluorescence in magnetic multiphase flows and its application on the novel detection for COVID-19

In the present study, the magnetic field induced self-assembly processes of magnetic microparticles in an aqueous liquid (the pure magnetic fluid) and nonmagnetic microparticles in ferrofluid (the inverse magnetic fluid) are experimentally investigated. The microparticles are formed into chain-like microstructures in both the pure magnetic fluid and the inverse magnetic fluid by applying the external magnetic field. The fluorescence parameters of these self-assembled chain-like microstructures are measured and compared to those without the effect of magnetic field. It is found that the fluorescence in the pure magnetic fluid is weakened, because the scattering and illuminating areas are reduced in the microstructures. On the contrary, the fluorescence in the inverse magnetic fluid is enhanced, because more fluorescent nonmagnetic microparticles are enriched and become detectable under the effect of the magnetic dipole force and the magnetic levitational force, and their unnecessary scattering can be absorbed by the surrounding ferrofluid. The average enhancement of the fluorescence area ratio in the inverse magnetic fluid with 3 μm nonmagnetic microparticles reaches 112.92%. The present work shows that the inverse magnetic fluid has advantages such as low cost, no scattering effect, stable fluorescence intensity, and relatively low magnetic resistance. In the end, a prototype design for the novel detection of coronavirus disease 2019 based on the magnetic field induced self-assembly in the inverse magnetic fluid is proposed, which could support the epidemic prevention and control.

Clinical characteristics and antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 spike 1 protein using VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests in COVID-19 patients in Japan

Introduction. Serological tests for COVID-19 are important in providing results for surveillance and supporting diagnosis. Investigating the serological response in COVID-19 patients with different disease severity is important for assessing the clinical utility of serological assays.Gap Statement. However, few studies have investigated the clinical utility of antibody assays for COVID-19 or differences in antibody response in association with disease severity.Aim. The study aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics and clinical utility of VITROS SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests according to COVID-19 severity in patients in Japan.Methodology. We analysed 255 serum specimens from 130 COVID-19 patients and examined clinical records and laboratory data. Presence of total (IgA, IgM, and IgG) and specific IgG antibody for the spike 1 antigen of SARS-CoV-2 was determined using VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests.Results. Overall, 98 (75.4 %) and 32 (24.6 %) patients had mild and severe COVID-19, respectively. On admission, 76 (58.5 %) and 45 (34.6 %) patients were positive for total and IgG antibody assays. Among 91 patients at discharge, 90 (98.9 %) and 81 (89.0 %) were positive for total and IgG antibody, respectively. Clinical background and laboratory findings on admission, but not the prevalence or concentration of total or IgG antibody, were associated with disease prognosis. Total and IgG antibody intensities were significantly higher in severe cases than in mild cases in serum collected >11 days after onset, but not within 10 days.Conclusion. VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 total and IgG assays will be useful as supporting diagnostic and surveillance tools and for evaluation of humoral immune response to COVID-19. Optimal prediction of disease prognosis is made from considering both clinical history and laboratory findings.

Research progress of using micro/nanomotors in the detection and therapy of diseases related to the blood environment

Micro/nanomotors bring new possibilities for the detection and therapy of diseases related to the blood environment with their unique motion effect. This work reviews the research progress of using micro/nanomotors in the detection and therapy of diseases related to the blood environment. First, we outline the advantages of using micro/nanomotors in blood-related disease detection. To be specific, the motion capability of micro/nanomotors can increase plasma or blood fluid convection and accelerate the interaction between the sample and the capture probe. This allows the effective reduction of the amount of reagents and treatment steps. Therefore, the application of micro/nanomotors significantly improves the analytical performance. Second, we discuss the key challenges and future prospects of micro/nanomotors in the treatment of blood-environment related diseases. It is very important to design a unique treatment plan according to the etiology and specific microenvironment of the disease. The next generation of micro/nanomotors is expected to bring exciting progress to the detection and therapy of blood-environment related diseases.

Biosensing strategies for the electrochemical detection of viruses and viral diseases - A review

Viruses are the causing agents for many relevant diseases, including influenza, Ebola, HIV/AIDS, and COVID-19. Its rapid replication and high transmissibility can lead to serious consequences not only to the individual but also to collective health, causing deep economic impacts. In this scenario, diagnosis tools are of significant importance, allowing the rapid, precise, and low-cost testing of a substantial number of individuals. Currently, PCR-based techniques are the gold standard for the diagnosis of viral diseases. Although these allow the diagnosis of different illnesses with high precision, they still present significant drawbacks. Their main disadvantages include long periods for obtaining results and the need for specialized professionals and equipment, requiring the tests to be performed in research centers. In this scenario, biosensors have been presented as promising alternatives for the rapid, precise, low-cost, and on-site diagnosis of viral diseases. This critical review article describes the advancements achieved in the last five years regarding electrochemical biosensors for the diagnosis of viral infections. First, genosensors and aptasensors for the detection of virus and the diagnosis of viral diseases are presented in detail regarding probe immobilization approaches, detection methods (label-free and sandwich), and amplification strategies. Following, immunosensors are highlighted, including many different construction strategies such as label-free, sandwich, competitive, and lateral-flow assays. Then, biosensors for the detection of viral-diseases-related biomarkers are presented and discussed, as well as point of care systems and their advantages when compared to traditional techniques. Last, the difficulties of commercializing electrochemical devices are critically discussed in conjunction with future trends such as lab-on-a-chip and flexible sensors.

Antibody response patterns in COVID-19 patients with different levels of disease severity in Japan

We analyzed antibody response patterns according to the level of disease severity in patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Japan. We analyzed 611 serum specimens from 231 patients with COVID-19 (mild, 170; severe, 31; critical, 30). Immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG antibodies against nucleocapsid protein (N) and spike 1 protein (S1) were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. The peaks of fitting curves for the optical density (OD) values of IgM and IgG antibodies against N appeared simultaneously, while those against S1 were delayed compared with N. The OD values of IgM against N and IgG against both N and S1 were significantly higher in the severe and critical cases than in the mild cases at 11 days after symptom onset. The seroconversion rates of IgG were higher than those of IgM against both N and S1 during the clinical course based on the optimal cut-off values defined in this study. The seroconversion rates of IgG and IgM against N and S1 were higher in the severe and critical cases than in the mild cases. Our findings show that a stronger antibody response occurred in COVID-19 patients with greater disease severity and there were low seroconversion rates of antibodies against N and S1 in the mild cases.

Neutralizing antibody-dependent and -independent immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 in cynomolgus macaques

We examined the pathogenicity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in cynomolgus macaques for 28 days to establish an animal model of COVID-19 for the development of vaccines and antiviral drugs. Cynomolgus macaques infected with SARS-CoV-2 showed body temperature rises and X-ray radiographic pneumonia without life-threatening clinical signs of disease. A neutralizing antibody against SARS-CoV-2 and T-lymphocytes producing interferon (IFN)-γ specifically for SARS-CoV-2 N-protein were detected on day 14 in one of three macaques with viral pneumonia. In the other two macaques, in which a neutralizing antibody was not detected, T-lymphocytes producing IFN-γ specifically for SARS-CoV-2 N protein increased on day 7 to day 14, suggesting that not only a neutralizing antibody but also cellular immunity has a role in the elimination of SARS-CoV-2. Thus, because of similar symptoms to approximately 80% of patients, cynomolgus macaques are appropriate to extrapolate the efficacy of vaccines and antiviral drugs for humans.

The Utility of Specific Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 in Laboratory Diagnosis

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has now become a global pandemic due to its high transmissibility. The unavoidable shortcomings of traditional diagnostic assay, including nucleic acid testing, diverse serological assays characterized by high-throughput and less workload, are playing a more and more crucial role to supplement the nucleic acid test. In this review, we summarize the dynamic change of the specific IgM, IgG, and IgA antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 as well as neutralizing antibodies and discuss the clinical utility and limitations of the different serological assays. SARS-CoV-2, a newly discovered virus, shows some unique pathogenetic and epidemiological characteristics that have not been completely understood so far. Currently, studies about the antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 and the clinical utility of serological testing are increasing. It's well suggested that the combination of serological tests and nucleic acid tests can cohesively improve the testing efficiency for identifying COVID-19 suspected patients.

Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Progress in characterising the humoral immune response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been rapid but areas of uncertainty persist. Assessment of the full range of evidence generated to date to understand the characteristics of the antibody response, its dynamics over time, its determinants and the immunity it confers will have a range of clinical and policy implications for this novel pathogen. This review comprehensively evaluated evidence describing the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 published from 01/01/2020-26/06/2020.

METHODS

Systematic review. Keyword-structured searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19 Primer. Articles were independently screened on title, abstract and full text by two researchers, with arbitration of disagreements. Data were double-extracted into a pre-designed template, and studies critically appraised using a modified version of the Public Health Ontario Meta-tool for Quality Appraisal of Public Health Evidence (MetaQAT) tool, with resolution of disagreements by consensus. Findings were narratively synthesised.

RESULTS

150 papers were included. Most studies (113 or 75%) were observational in design, were based wholly or primarily on data from hospitalised patients (108, 72%) and had important methodological limitations. Few considered mild or asymptomatic infection. Antibody dynamics were well described in the acute phase, up to around three months from disease onset, but the picture regarding correlates of the antibody response was inconsistent. IgM was consistently detected before IgG in included studies, peaking at weeks two to five and declining over a further three to five weeks post-symptom onset depending on the patient group; IgG peaked around weeks three to seven post-symptom onset then plateaued, generally persisting for at least eight weeks. Neutralising antibodies were detectable within seven to 15 days following disease onset, with levels increasing until days 14-22 before levelling and then decreasing, but titres were lower in those with asymptomatic or clinically mild disease. Specific and potent neutralising antibodies have been isolated from convalescent plasma. Cross-reactivity but limited cross-neutralisation with other human coronaviridae was reported. Evidence for protective immunity in vivo was limited to small, short-term animal studies, showing promising initial results in the immediate recovery phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Literature on antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 is of variable quality with considerable heterogeneity of methods, study participants, outcomes measured and assays used. Although acute phase antibody dynamics are well described, longer-term patterns are much less well evidenced. Comprehensive assessment of the role of demographic characteristics and disease severity on antibody responses is needed. Initial findings of low neutralising antibody titres and possible waning of titres over time may have implications for sero-surveillance and disease control policy, although further evidence is needed. The detection of potent neutralising antibodies in convalescent plasma is important in the context of development of therapeutics and vaccines. Due to limitations with the existing evidence base, large, cross-national cohort studies using appropriate statistical analysis and standardised serological assays and clinical classifications should be prioritised.

The Main Molecular and Serological Methods for Diagnosing COVID-19: An Overview Based on the Literature

Diagnostic tests have been considered as the main alternative for the control of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), as a correct diagnosis allows for decision making when facing the disease, particularly as there is a lack of effective therapeutic protocols and vaccines. Thus, in this review, we summarized the main diagnostic approaches currently available for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans based on studies available in article databases. The tests can be organized into two main categories: nucleic acid-based tests, recommended for the initial detection of the virus, and serological tests, recommended for assessing the disease progression. The studies have shown that the performance of diagnostic methods depends on different factors, such as the type of samples and the characteristics of each assay. It was identified that the positivity of the tests is mainly related to the onset of symptoms. We also observed that point-of-care diagnoses are considered as one of the main trends in this area, due to the low-cost and simplicity of the assay; however, the analytical performance must be critically analyzed. Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the critical role of diagnostic technologies in the control of infectious diseases.

Cell-Type-Specific Immune Dysregulation in Severely Ill COVID-19 Patients

Recent studies have demonstrated immunologic dysfunction in severely ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. We use single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) to analyze the transcriptome of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from healthy (n = 3) and COVID-19 patients with moderate disease (n = 5), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS, n = 6), or recovering from ARDS (n = 6). Our data reveal transcriptomic profiles indicative of defective antigen presentation and interferon (IFN) responsiveness in monocytes from ARDS patients, which contrasts with higher responsiveness to IFN signaling in lymphocytes. Furthermore, genes involved in cytotoxic activity are suppressed in both natural killer (NK) and CD8 T lymphocytes, and B cell activation is deficient, which is consistent with delayed viral clearance in severely ill COVID-19 patients. Our study demonstrates that COVID-19 patients with ARDS have a state of immune imbalance in which dysregulation of both innate and adaptive immune responses may be contributing to a more severe disease course.

Reusable Self-Sterilization Masks Based on Electrothermal Graphene Filters

Surgical mask is recommended by the World Health Organization for personal protection against disease transmission. However, most of the surgical masks on the market are disposable that cannot be self-sterilized for reuse. Thus, when confronting the global public health crisis, a severe shortage of mask resource is inevitable. In this paper, a novel low-cost electrothermal mask with excellent self-sterilization performance and portability is reported to overcome this shortage. First, a flexible, ventilated, and conductive cloth tape is patterned and adhered to the surface of a filter layer made of melt-blown nonwoven fabrics (MNF), which functions as interdigital electrodes. Then, a graphene layer with premier electric and thermal conductivity is coated onto the MNF. Operating under a low voltage of 3 V, the graphene-modified MNF (mod-MNF) can quickly generate large amounts of heat to achieve a high temperature above 80 °C, which can kill the majority of known viruses attached to the filter layer and the mask surface. Finally, the optimized graphene-modified masks based on the mod-MNF filter retain a relatively high particulate matter (PM) removal efficiency and a low-pressure drop. Moreover, the electrothermal masks can maintain almost the same PM removal efficiency over 10 times of electrifying, suggesting its outstanding reusability.

Meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of serology tests for COVID-19: impact of assay design and post-symptom-onset intervals

Serology detection is recognized for its sensitivity in convalescent patients with COVID-19, in comparison with nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs). This article aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of serologic methods for COVID-19 based on assay design and post-symptom-onset intervals. Two authors independently searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Ovid, EBSCO for case-control, longitudinal and cohort studies that determined the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests in comparison with NAATs in COVID-19 cases and used QUADAS-2 for quality assessment. Pooled accuracy was analysed using INLA method. A total of 27 studies were included in this meta-analysis, with 4 cohort, 16 case-control and 7 longitudinal studies and 4565 participants. Serology tests had the lowest sensitivity at 0-7 days after symptom onset and the highest at >14 days. TAB had a better sensitivity than IgG or IgM only. Using combined nucleocapsid (N) and spike(S) protein had a better sensitivity compared to N or S protein only. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) had a lower sensitivity than enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) and chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA). Serology tests will play an important role in the clinical diagnosis for later stage COVID-19 patients. ELISA tests, detecting TAB or targeting combined N and S proteins had a higher diagnostic sensitivity compared to other methods.

Antibody response and therapy in COVID-19 patients: what can be learned for vaccine development?

The newly emerged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected millions of people and caused tremendous morbidity and mortality worldwide. Effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to SARS-CoV-2 infection is lacking, and different therapeutic strategies are under testing. Host humoral and cellular immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection is a critical determinant for patients’ outcomes. SARS-CoV-2 infection results in seroconversion and production of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The antibodies may suppress viral replication through neutralization but might also participate in COVID-19 pathogenesis through a process termed antibody-dependent enhancement. Rapid progress has been made in the research of antibody response and therapy in COVID-19 patients, including characterization of the clinical features of antibody responses in different populations infected by SARS-CoV-2, treatment of COVID-19 patients with convalescent plasma and intravenous immunoglobin products, isolation and characterization of a large panel of monoclonal neutralizing antibodies and early clinical testing, as well as clinical results from several COVID-19 vaccine candidates. In this review, we summarize the recent progress and discuss the implications of these findings in vaccine development.

Immune response in COVID-19: What do we currently know?

In 2002/2003 there was a pandemic denominate SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), caused by the SARS-CoV virus that belongs to the genera Betacoranavirus and the family Coronaviridae, generally responsible for influenza infections. In mid of 2019, a new disease by the coronavirus named by COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged, both infections have flu symptoms, however they are infections that variable intensity, being medium to severe. In medium infections individuals have the virus and exhibit symptoms, however hospitalization is not necessary, in severe infections, individuals are hospitalized, have high pathology and in some cases progress to death. The virus is formed by simple positive RNA, enveloped, non-segmented, and presenting the largest genome of viruses constituting 32 Kb, consisting of envelope proteins, membrane, nucleocapsid and spike protein, which is essential in the interaction with the host cells. As for the origin of this virus, research has been intensified to determine this paradox and although the similarity with SARS-CoV, this virus did not has necessarily the same place of origin. As for the immune system, it is currently unknown how this new virus interacts. In this brief review, we demonstrate important considerations about the responses to this infection.

COVID-19 vaccine-readiness for anti-CD20-depleting therapy in autoimmune diseases

Although most autoimmune diseases are considered to be CD4 T cell- or antibody-mediated, many respond to CD20-depleting antibodies that have limited influence on CD4 and plasma cells. This includes rituximab, oblinutuzumab and ofatumumab that are used in cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and off-label in a large number of other autoimmunities and ocrelizumab in multiple sclerosis. Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic created concerns about immunosuppression in autoimmunity, leading to cessation or a delay in immunotherapy treatments. However, based on the known and emerging biology of autoimmunity and COVID-19, it was hypothesised that while B cell depletion should not necessarily expose people to severe SARS-CoV-2-related issues, it may inhibit protective immunity following infection and vaccination. As such, drug-induced B cell subset inhibition, that controls at least some autoimmunities, would not influence innate and CD8 T cell responses, which are central to SARS-CoV-2 elimination, nor the hypercoagulation and innate inflammation causing severe morbidity. This is supported clinically, as the majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected, CD20-depleted people with autoimmunity have recovered. However, protective neutralizing antibody and vaccination responses are predicted to be blunted until naive B cells repopulate, based on B cell repopulation kinetics and vaccination responses, from published rituximab and unpublished ocrelizumab (NCT00676715, NCT02545868) trial data, shown here. This suggests that it may be possible to undertake dose interruption to maintain inflammatory disease control, while allowing effective vaccination against SARS-CoV-29, if and when an effective vaccine is available.

Clinical Ordering Practices of the SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test at a Large Academic Medical Center

Background

The novel severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) originated in December 2019 and has now infected almost 5 million people in the United States. In the spring of 2020, private laboratories and some hospitals began antibody testing despite limited evidence-based guidance.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who received SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing from May 14, 2020, to June 15, 2020, at a large academic medical center, 1 of the first in the United States to provide antibody testing capability to individual clinicians in order to identify clinician-described indications for antibody testing compared with current expert-based guidance from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Results

Of 444 individual antibody test results, the 2 most commonly described testing indications, apart from public health epidemiology studies (n = 223), were for patients with a now resolved COVID-19-compatible illness (n = 105) with no previous molecular testing and for asymptomatic patients believed to have had a past exposure to a person with COVID-19-compatible illness (n = 60). The rate of positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing among those indications consistent with current IDSA and CDC guidance was 17% compared with 5% (P < .0001) among those indications inconsistent with such guidance. Testing inconsistent with current expert-based guidance accounted for almost half of testing costs.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate a dissociation between clinician-described indications for testing and expert-based guidance and a significantly different rate of positive testing between these 2 groups. Clinical curiosity and patient preference appear to have played a significant role in testing decisions and substantially contributed to testing costs.

Dynamic changes of throat swabs RNA and serum antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 and their diagnostic performances in patients with COVID-19

Dynamic changes of RNA and antibodies in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients remain largely unknown, and influence factors for antibody production have not been fully clarified. In this study, consecutive throat swabs specimens (n = 1875) from 187 patients were collected to analyse the dynamic changes of RNA. Moreover, 162 serial serum samples from 31 patients were tested for seroconversion of IgM and IgG. Meanwhile, IgM and IgG were also detected in 409 COVID-19 patients and 389 controls. Additionally, the logistic regression analysis was executed to identify the possible influence factors for antibody production. The median positive conversion time for RNA was day 7 (IQR, 3-11), and the positive rate was highest in day 1-5 (74.59 %) and then gradually decreased. The median time of seroconversion for IgM and IgG were both day 12 (IQR, 10-15). The sensitivity and specificity for IgM (or IgG) was 87.04% and 96.92%, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that reduced lymphocytes and short positive conversion time for SARS-CoV-2 RNA were independent factors for negative results of IgM and IgG. In conclusion, RNA and antibodies should be combined for COVID-19 diagnosis, and delayed seroconversion was influenced by the decreased lymphocytes and short positive conversion time for RNA.

Implications of Sex Differences in Immunity for SARS-CoV-2 Pathogenesis and Design of Therapeutic Interventions

Men present more frequently with severe manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and are at higher risk for death. The underlying mechanisms for these differences between female and male individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are insufficiently understood. However, studies from other viral infections have shown that females can mount stronger immune responses against viruses than males. Emerging knowledge on the basic biological pathways that underlie differences in immune responses between women and men needs to be incorporated into research efforts on SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis and pathology to identify targets for therapeutic interventions aimed at enhancing antiviral immune function and lung airway resilience while reducing pathogenic inflammation in COVID-19.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19:Serologic Testing

BACKGROUND

The availability of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic testing has rapidly increased. Current assays use a variety of technologies, measure different classes of immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin combinations and detect antibodies directed against different portions of the virus. The overall accuracy of these tests, however, has not been well-defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA.

OBJECTIVE

IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests in a variety of settings. We also highlight important unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, public health surveillance, vaccine development and the selection of convalescent plasma donors.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on eight diagnostic recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Information on the clinical performance and utility of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests are rapidly emerging. Based on available evidence, detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be useful for confirming the presence of current or past infection in selected situations. The panel identified three potential indications for serologic testing including: 1) evaluation of patients with a high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 when molecular diagnostic testing is negative and at least two weeks have passed since symptom onset; 2) assessment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children; and 3) for conducting serosurveillance studies. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for either diagnosis or epidemiology was, however, graded as very low to moderate.

Cell type-specific immune dysregulation in severely ill COVID-19 patients

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has quickly become the most serious pandemic since the 1918 flu pandemic. In extreme situations, patients develop a dysregulated inflammatory lung injury called acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) that causes progressive respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilatory support. Recent studies have demonstrated immunologic dysfunction in severely ill COVID-19 patients. To further delineate the dysregulated immune response driving more severe clinical course from SARS-CoV-2 infection, we used single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) to analyze the transcriptome of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from hospitalized COVID-19 patients having mild disease (n = 5), developing ARDS (n = 6), and recovering from ARDS (n = 6). Our data demonstrated an overwhelming inflammatory response with select immunodeficiencies within various immune populations in ARDS patients. Specifically, their monocytes had defects in antigen presentation and deficiencies in interferon responsiveness that contrasted the higher interferon signals in lymphocytes. Furthermore, cytotoxic activity was suppressed in both NK and CD8 lymphocytes whereas B cell activation was deficient, which is consistent with the delayed viral clearance in severely ill COVID-19 patients. Finally, we identified altered signaling pathways in the severe group that suggests immunosenescence and immunometabolic changes could be contributing to the dysfunctional immune response. Our study demonstrates that COVID-19 patients with ARDS have an immunologically distinct response when compared to those with a more innocuous disease course and show a state of immune imbalance in which deficiencies in both the innate and adaptive immune response may be contributing to a more severe disease course in COVID-19.

Linear B-cell epitopes in the spike and nucleocapsid proteins as markers of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and disease severity

Background

Given the unceasing worldwide surge in COVID-19 cases, there is an imperative need to develop highly specific and sensitive serology assays to define exposure to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Methods

Pooled plasma samples from PCR positive COVID-19 patients were used to identify linear B-cell epitopes from a SARS-CoV-2 peptide library of spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M), and nucleocapsid (N) structural proteins by peptide-based ELISA. Hit epitopes were further validated with 79 COVID-19 patients with different disease severity status, 13 seasonal human CoV, 20 recovered SARS patients and 22 healthy donors.

Findings

Four immunodominant epitopes, S14P5, S20P2, S21P2 and N4P5, were identified on the S and N viral proteins. IgG responses to all identified epitopes displayed a strong detection profile, with N4P5 achieving the highest level of specificity (100%) and sensitivity (>96%) against SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, the magnitude of IgG responses to S14P5, S21P2 and N4P5 were strongly associated with disease severity.

Interpretation

IgG responses to the peptide epitopes can serve as useful indicators for the degree of immunopathology in COVID-19 patients, and function as higly specific and sensitive sero-immunosurveillance tools for recent or past SARS-CoV-2 infections. The flexibility of these epitopes to be used alone or in combination will allow for the development of improved point-of-care-tests (POCTs).

Funding

Biomedical Research Council (BMRC), the A*ccelerate GAP-funded project (ACCL/19-GAP064-R20H-H) from Agency of Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), and National Medical Research Council (NMRC) COVID-19 Research fund (COVID19RF-001) and CCGSFPOR20002. ATR is supported by the Singapore International Graduate Award (SINGA), A*STAR.

The role of host genetics in the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 susceptibility and severity

This article provides a review of studies evaluating the role of host (and viral) genetics (including variation in HLA genes) in the immune response to coronaviruses, as well as the clinical outcome of coronavirus-mediated disease. The initial sections focus on seasonal coronaviruses, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV. We then examine the state of the knowledge regarding genetic polymorphisms and SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. The article concludes by discussing research areas with current knowledge gaps and proposes several avenues for future scientific exploration in order to develop new insights into the immunology of SARS-CoV-2.

Antibody responses in COVID-19 patients

Measuring virus-specific antibody responses to emerging pathogens is a well-established and highly useful tool to diagnose such infections, understand interactions between the immune system and pathogens, and provide potential clues for the development of vaccines or therapeutic agents against such pathogens. Since the beginning of 2020, the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 as the emerging virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic has provided new insight into the complexity of antibody responses to this dangerous virus. The current review aims to sort out diverse and sometimes seemingly confusing findings to put together a cohesive understanding on the profile of antibody responses elicited in COVID-19 patients.