How to interpret and use COVID-19 serology and immunology tests

BackgroundAlthough molecular tests are considered the reference standard for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnostics, serological and immunological tests may be useful in specific settings.ObjectivesThis review summarizes the underlying principles and performance of COVID-19 serological and immunological testing.SourcesSelected peer-reviewed publications on COVID-19 related serology and immunology published between December 2019 and March 2021.ContentSerological tests are highly specific but heterogeneous in their sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19. For certain indications, including delayed disease presentations, serological tests can have added value. The presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 may indicate a recent or past COVID-19 infection. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) antibody tests have the advantages of being easy and fast to perform, but many have a low sensitivity in acute settings. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs) have higher sensitivities. Besides humoral immunity, cellular immunity is also essential for successful host defences against viruses. Enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISpot) assays can be used to measure T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2. The presence of cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in never exposed patients suggests the possibility of cellular immunity induced by other circulating coronaviruses. T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 have also been detected in recovered COVID-19 patients with no detectable antibodies.ImplicationsSerological and immunological tests are primarily applied for population-based seroprevalence studies to evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 control measures and increase our understanding of the immunology behind COVID-19. Combining molecular diagnostics with serological tests may optimize the detection of COVID-19. As not all infected patients will develop antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, assessment of cellular immunity may provide complementary information on whether a patient has been previously infected with COVID-19. More studies are needed to understand the correlations of these serological and immunological parameters with protective immunity, taking into account the different circulating virus variants.     

Multicenter evaluation of four immunoassays for the performance of early diagnosis of COVID-19 and assessment of antibody responses of patients with pneumonia in Taiwan

Background/purposeOur study goals were to evaluate the diagnostic performance of four anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies tests and the differences in dynamic immune responses between COVID-19 patients with and without pneumonia.MethodsWe collected 184 serum samples from 70 consecutively qRT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients at four participating hospitals from 23 January 2020 to 30 September 2020. COVID-19 pneumonia was defined as the presence of new pulmonary infiltration. Serum samples were grouped by the duration after symptom onset on a weekly basis for antibody testing and analysis. The four immunoassays: Beckman SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM (Beckman Test), Siemens (ADVIA Centaur®) SARS-CoV-2 Total (COV2T) (Siemens Test), SBC COVID-19 IgG ELISA (SBC Test) and EliA SARS-CoV-2-Sp1 IgG/IgM/IgA P2 Research (EliA Test) were used for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies.ResultsThe sensitivity of all tests reached 100% after 42 days of symptom onset. Siemens Test, the only test detecting total anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, had the best performance in the early diagnosis of COVID-19 infection (day 0–7: 77%; day 8–14: 95%) compared to the other 3 serological tests. All tests showed 100% specificity except SBC Test (98%). COVID-19 patients with pneumonia had significantly higher testing signal values than patients without pneumonia (all p values < 0.05, except EliA IgM Test). However, Siemens Test and SBC Test had highest probability in early prediction of the presence of COVID-19 pneumonia.ConclusionChronological analysis of immune response among COVID-19 patients with different serological tests provides important information in the early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and prediction of the risk of pneumonia after infection.     

Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Exhibit Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Serological Responses

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, is a global health care emergency. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological profiling of critically ill COVID-19 patients was performed to determine their humoral response. Blood was collected from critically ill ICU patients, either COVID-19 positive (+) or COVID-19 negative (−), to measure anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins: IgM; IgA; IgG; and Total Ig (combined IgM/IgA/IgG). Cohorts were similar, with the exception that COVID-19+ patients had a greater body mass indexes, developed bilateral pneumonias more frequently and suffered increased hypoxia when compared to COVID-19- patients (p < 0.05). The mortality rate for COVID-19+ patients was 50%. COVID-19 status could be determined by anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological responses with excellent classification accuracies on ICU day 1 (89%); ICU day 3 (96%); and ICU days 7 and 10 (100%). The importance of each Ig isotype for determining COVID-19 status on combined ICU days 1 and 3 was: Total Ig, 43%; IgM, 27%; IgA, 24% and IgG, 6%. Peak serological responses for each Ig isotype occurred on different ICU days (IgM day 13 > IgA day 17 > IgG persistently increased), with the Total Ig peaking at approximately ICU day 18. Those COVID-19+ patients who died had earlier or similar peaks in IgA and Total Ig in their ICU stay when compared to patients who survived (p < 0.005). Critically ill COVID-19 patients exhibit anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological responses, including those COVID-19 patients who ultimately died, suggesting that blunted serological responses did not contribute to mortality. Serological profiling of critically ill COVID-19 patients may aid disease surveillance, patient cohorting and help guide antibody therapies such as convalescent plasma.     

Immunological response against SARS-CoV-2 following full-dose administration of Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine in nursing home residents

ObjectivesThe current study was aimed at examining SARS-CoV-2 immune responses following two doses of Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine among elderly people in nursing homes.MethodsA prospective cohort study in a representative sample from nursing homes in Valencia (n = 881; males: 271, females 610; median age, 86 years) recruited residents using a random one-stage cluster sampling approach. A lateral flow immunochromatography device (LFIC) (OnSite COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test; CTK BIOTECH, Poway, CA, USA) was used as the front-line test for detecting SARS-CoV-2-Spike (S)-specific antibodies in whole blood obtained using a fingerstick. Residents returning negative LFIC results underwent venipuncture and testing for presence of SARS-CoV-2-S-reactive antibodies and T cells using the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA, USA), the LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG assay (Diasorin S.p.A, Saluggia, Italy) and by flow cytometry, respectively.ResultsThe SARS-CoV-2-S antibody detection rate in nursing home residents was 99.6% (283/284) and 98.3% (587/597) for SARS-CoV-2 recovered and naïve residents, respectively, within a median of 99 days (range 17–125 days) after full vaccination. Three out of five residents lacking SARS-CoV-2-S antibodies had detectable S-reactive CD8⁺ and/or CD4⁺ T cells. In addition, 50/50 and 40/50 participants with detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies also had SARS-CoV-2-S-reactive interferon-γ-producing CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells, respectively.DiscussionThe Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine is highly immunogenic in nursing home residents.     

Virological and serological kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant vaccine breakthrough infections: a multicentre cohort study

ObjectivesHighly effective vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been developed but variants of concerns are worrisome, especially B.1.617.2 (Delta) which has rapidly spread across the world. We aim to study if vaccination alters virological and serological kinetics in breakthrough infections.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre retrospective cohort study of patients in Singapore who had received a licensed mRNA vaccine and been admitted to hospital with B.1.617.2 SARS-CoV-2 infection. We compared clinical features, virological and serological kinetics (anti-nucleocapsid, anti-spike and surrogate virus neutralization titres) between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.ResultsOut of 218 individuals with B.1.617.2 infection, 84 received an mRNA vaccine of which 71 were fully vaccinated, 130 were unvaccinated and four received a non-mRNA vaccine. Despite significantly older age in the vaccine breakthrough group, only 2.8% (2/71) developed severe COVID-19 requiring oxygen supplementation compared with 53.1% (69/130) in the unvaccinated group (p < 0.001). Odds of severe COVID-19 following vaccination were significantly lower (adjusted odds ratio 0.07 95% CI 0.015–0.335, p 0.001). PCR cycle threshold values were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups at diagnosis, but viral loads decreased faster in vaccinated individuals. Early, robust boosting of anti-spike protein antibodies was observed in vaccinated patients; however, these titres were significantly lower against B.1.617.2 than the wildtype vaccine strain.DiscussionThe mRNA vaccines are highly effective at preventing symptomatic and severe COVID-19 associated with B.1.617.2 infection. Vaccination is associated with faster decline in viral RNA load and a robust serological response. Vaccination remains a key strategy for control of the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Persistence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: immunoassay heterogeneity and implications for serosurveillance

ObjectivesSerological studies have been critical in tracking the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persistence remain sparse, especially from infected individuals with few to no symptoms. The objective of the study was to quantify the sensitivity for detecting historic SARS-CoV-2 infections as a function of time since infection for three commercially available SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays and to explore the implications of decaying immunoassay sensitivity in estimating seroprevalence.MethodsWe followed a cohort of mostly mild/asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals (n = 354) at least 8 months after their presumed infection date and tested their serum for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with three commercially available assays: Roche-N, Roche-RBD and EuroImmun-S1. We developed a latent class statistical model to infer the specificity and time-varying sensitivity of each assay and show through simulations how inappropriately accounting for test performance can lead to biased serosurvey estimates.ResultsAntibodies were detected at follow-up in 74–100% of participants, depending on immunoassays. Both Roche assays maintain high sensitivity, with the EuroImmun assay missing 40% of infections after 9 months. Simulations reveal that without appropriate adjustment for time-varying assay sensitivity, seroprevalence surveys may underestimate infection rates.DiscussionAntibodies persist for at least 8 months after infection in a cohort of mildly infected individuals with detection depending on assay choice. Appropriate assay performance adjustment is important for the interpretation of serological studies in the case of diminishing sensitivity after infection.     

Low prevalence of active COVID-19 in Slovenia: a nationwide population study of a probability-based sample

ObjectivesAccurate population-level assessment of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) burden is fundamental for navigating the path forward during the ongoing pandemic, but current knowledge is scant. We conducted the first nationwide population study using a probability-based sample to assess active severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, combined with a longitudinal follow-up of the entire cohort over the next 6 months. Baseline SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing results and the first 3-week follow-up results are presented.MethodsA probability-based sample of the Slovenian population comprising data from 2.1 million people was selected from the Central Population Register (n = 3000). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in nasopharyngeal samples using the cobas 6800 SARS-CoV-2 assay. Each participant filled in a detailed baseline questionnaire with basic sociodemographic data and detailed medical history compatible with COVID-19. After 3 weeks, participants were interviewed for the presence of COVID-19–compatible clinical symptoms and signs, including in household members, and offered immediate testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA if indicated.ResultsA total of 1368 individuals (46%) consented to participate and completed the questionnaire. Two of 1366 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (prevalence 0.15%; posterior mean 0.18%, 95% Bayesian confidence interval 0.03–0.47; 95% highest density region (HDR) 0.01–0.41). No newly diagnosed infections occurred in the cohort during the first 3-week follow-up round.ConclusionsThe low prevalence of active COVID-19 infections found in this study accurately predicted the dynamics of the epidemic in Slovenia over the subsequent month. Properly designed and timely executed studies using probability-based samples combined with routine target-testing figures provide reliable data that can be used to make informed decisions on relaxing or strengthening disease mitigation strategies.     

Antibody persistence in the first 6 months following SARS-CoV-2 infection among hospital workers: a prospective longitudinal study

ObjectivesTo evaluate longitudinally the persistence of humoral immunity for up to 6 months in a cohort of hospital employees with mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsWe measured anti-RBD (receptor binding domain of viral spike protein), anti-N (viral nucleoprotein) and neutralizing antibodies at 1, 3 and 6 months after mostly mild COVID-19 in 200 hospital workers using commercial ELISAs and a surrogate virus neutralization assay.ResultsAntibodies specific for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) persisted in all participants for up to 6 months. Anti-RBD geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) progressively increased between months 1 (74.2 U/mL, 95%CI: 62.7–87.8), 3 (103.2 U/mL, 95%CI: 87.9–121.2; p < 0.001), and 6 (123.3 U/mL, 95%CI: 103.4–147.0; p < 0.001) in the whole cohort. Anti-N antibodies were detectable in >97% at all times. Neutralizing antibodies were detectable in 99.5% of participants (195/196) at 6 months post infection. Their GMC progressively decreased between months 1 (20.1 AU/mL, 95%CI: 16.9–24.0), 3 (15.2 AU/mL, 95%CI: 13.2–17.6; p < 0.001) and 6 (9.4 AU/mL, 95%CI: 7.7–11.4; p < 0.001). RBD-ACE2-inhibiting antibody titres and anti-RBD antibody concentrations strongly correlated at each timepoint (all r > 0.86, p < 0.001). Disease severity was associated with higher initial anti-RBD and RBD-ACE2-inhibiting antibody titres, but not with their kinetics.ConclusionsNeutralizing antibodies persisted at 6 months in almost all participants, indicating more durability than initially feared. Anti-RBD antibodies persisted better and even increased over time, possibly related to the preferential detection of progressively higher-affinity antibodies.     

One-month humoral response following two or three doses of messenger RNA coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines as primary vaccination in specific populations in France: first results from the Agence Nationale Recherche contre le Sida (ANRS)0001S COV-POPART cohort

Objectives: We aimed to investigate the 1-month humoral response to two or three doses of a messenger RNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine as a primary vaccination regimen in specific populations compared with that in healthy adults.MethodsAgence Nationale Recherche contre le Sida (ANRS)0001S–COV-POPART (NCT04824651) is a French nation-wide, multi-centre, prospective, observational cohort study assessing the immune response to COVID-19 vaccines routinely administered to 11 sub-groups of patients with chronic conditions and two control groups. Patients and controls who received at least two vaccine doses and whose results 1 month after the second dose were available were included. The humoral response was assessed 1 month after the first, second and third doses (if applicable) based on the percentage of responders (positive for anti-Spike severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2] IgG antibodies), geometric means of anti-Spike SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) and proportion of participants with anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralizing antibodies (in vitro neutralization assay for the original SARS-CoV-2 strain). All analyses were centralized.ResultsWe included 4091 participants in this analysis: 2979 participants from specific sub-populations and 1112 controls. Only 522 (17.5%) participants from the specific populations received three doses as a primary vaccination regimen. Patients living with human immunodeficiency virus, cancer and diabetes had high percentages of responders after two doses, whereas patients with solid organ transplants, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants and hypogammaglobulinaemia had the lowest percentage of responders (35.9% [95% CI, 29.2–43.0], 57.4% [95% CI, 48.1–66.3] and 77.1% [95% CI, 65.6–86.3], respectively). In those who received the third dose, the percentage of responders reached 54.2% (95% CI, 42.9–65.2) (vs. 32.3% [95% CI, 16.7–51.4] after 2 doses) among those with solid organ transplants and 73.9% (95% CI, 58.9–85.7) (vs. 56.1% [95% CI, 46.2–65.7] after 2 doses) among those with hematopoietic stem cell transplants. Similar results were found with anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralizing antibodies.ConclusionsA lower humoral response to COVID-19 vaccines was observed in the specific populations compared with that in the controls. The third dose of this vaccine in the primary regimen had a positive effect on the percentages of patients who developed anti-Spike IgG antibodies and specific neutralizing antibodies.     

Characteristics associated with serological COVID-19 vaccine response and durability in an older population with significant comorbidity: the Danish Nationwide ENFORCE Study

ObjectivesTo identify individual characteristics associated with serological COVID-19 vaccine responsiveness and the durability of vaccine-induced antibodies.MethodsAdults without history of SARS-CoV-2 infection from the Danish population scheduled for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were enrolled in this parallel group, phase 4 study. SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG and Spike-ACE2-receptor-blocking antibodies were measured at days 0, 21, 90, and 180. Vaccine responsiveness was categorized according to Spike IgG and Spike-ACE2-receptor-blocking levels at day 90 after first vaccination. Nondurable vaccine response was defined as day-90 responders who no longer had significant responses by day 180.ResultsOf 6544 participants completing two vaccine doses (median age 64 years; interquartile range: 54–75), 3654 (55.8%) received BTN162b2, 2472 (37.8%) mRNA-1273, and 418 (6.4%) ChAdOx1 followed by an mRNA vaccine. Levels of both types of antibodies increased from baseline to day 90 and then decreased to day 180. The decrease was more pronounced for levels of Spike-ACE2-receptor-blocking antibodies than for Spike IgG. Proportions with vaccine hyporesponsiveness and lack of durable response were 5.0% and 12.1% for Spike IgG and 12.7% and 39.6% for Spike-ACE2-receptor-blocking antibody levels, respectively. Male sex, vaccine type, and number of comorbidities were associated with all four outcomes. Additionally, age ≥75 years was associated with hyporesponsiveness for Spike-ACE2-receptor-blocking antibodies (adjusted odds ratio: 1.59; 95% confidence interval: 1.25–2.01) but not for Spike IgG.DiscussionComorbidity, male sex, and vaccine type were risk factors for hyporesponsiveness and nondurable response to COVID-19 vaccination. The functional activity of vaccine-induced antibodies declined with increasing age and had waned to pre-second-vaccination levels for most individuals after 6 months.     

Sample pooling: burden or solution?

BackgroundPool-testing strategies combine samples from multiple people and test them as a group. A pool-testing approach may shorten the screening time and increase the test rate during times of limited test availability and inadequate reporting speed. Pool testing has been effectively used for a wide variety of infectious disease screening settings. Historically, it originated from serological testing in syphilis. During the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, pool testing is considered across the globe to inform opening strategies and to monitor infection rates after the implementation of interventions.AimsThis narrative review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the global efforts to implement pool testing, specifically for COVID-19 screening.SourcesData were retrieved from a detailed search for peer-reviewed articles and preprint reports using Medline/PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Google up to 21st March 2021, using search terms “pool testing”, “viral”, “serum”, “SARS-CoV-2” and “COVID-19”.ContentThis review summarizes the history and theory of pool testing. We identified numerous peer-reviewed articles that describe specific details and practical implementation of pool testing. Successful examples as well as limitations of pool testing, in general and specifically related to the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA and antibodies, are reviewed. While promising, significant operational, pre-analytical, logistical, and economic challenges need to be overcome to advance pool testing.ImplicationsThe theory of pool testing is well understood and numerous successful examples from the past are available. Operationalization of pool testing requires sophisticated processes that can be adapted to the local medical circumstances. Special attention needs to be paid to sample collection, sample pooling, and strategies to avoid re-sampling.     

SARS-CoV-2 specific T-cell immunity in COVID-19 convalescent patients and unexposed controls measured by ex vivo ELISpot assay

ObjectivesSARS-CoV-2 T-cell response characterization represents a crucial issue for defining the role of immune protection against COVID-19. The aim of the study was to assess the SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response in a cohort of COVID-19 convalescent patients and in a group of unexposed subjects.MethodsSARS-CoV-2 T-cell response was quantified from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of 87 COVID-19 convalescent subjects (range 7–239 days after symptom onset) and 33 unexposed donors by ex vivo ELISpot assay. Follow-up of SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response was performed in ten subjects up to 12 months after symptom onset. The role of SARS-CoV-2 specific CD4 and CD8 T cells was characterized in a group of COVID-19 convalescent subjects. Moreover, neutralizing antibodies were determined in serum samples.ResultsIn 14/33 (42.4%) unexposed donors and 85/87 (97.7%) COVID-19 convalescent subjects a positive result for at least one SARS-CoV-2 antigen was observed. A positive response was observed up to 12 months after COVID-19 infection (median 246 days after symptom onset; range 118–362 days). Of note, SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response seems to be mainly mediated by CD4 T cells. A weak positive correlation was observed between Spike-specific T-cell response and neutralizing antibody titre (p 0.0028; r² = 0.2891) and positive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response was observed in 8/9 (88.9%) COVID-19 convalescent subjects with undetectable SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies.DiscussionCross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response in uninfected patients may be due to previous infections with other common coronaviruses. Our data suggest that long-term SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response might accompany a waning humoral response.     

Undenatured parvovirus B19 antigens are essential for the accurate detection of parvovirus B19 IgG

Recombinant versions of parvovirus B19 capsid proteins VP1 and VP2 are used for immunodiagnostic assays for detection of antiviral antibodies. The immune response to B19 is characterized by a gradual loss of antibodies directed against linear epitopes of VP2. A similar occurrence for antibodies raised against VP1 protein would represent a limitation to serological assays incorporating denatured versions of either viral antigen. Four detection systems for B19 Ig detection have been developed, including an IgG enzyme immunoassay (EIA) based on undenatured VP2, an immunofluorescence assay (IFA) based on undenatured VP1, a Western blot assay incorporating denatured VP1 and VP2, and an alternative blot system using denatured VP1 but undenatured VP2. Specimens (n = 108) were tested by all four systems and identical results were obtained by EIA, IFA, and alternative blot systems, whereby 75/108 (69%) were B19 IgG-positive. Twelve B19 IgG-positive specimens, representing 16% (12/75) of the confirmed positives, did not react to either viral antigens when tested by Western blot. It is concluded that these sera do not react with linear epitopes of VP1 and VP2 antigens. Eighty-five different specimens, which had previously been shown to be both B19 IgM- and IgG-positive by EIA and IFA, were positive by B19 IgM and IgG Western blot. In the IgG Western blot assay, 69 reacted with both VP1 and VP2 and 16 with VP1 only. It is concluded that there is a requirement for at least one undenatured antigen for the immunological detection of B19 IgG. J. Med. Virol. 57:179–185, 1999. © 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Pre-exposure prophylaxis with tixagevimab and cilgavimab (Evusheld) for COVID-19 among 1112 severely immunocompromised patients

ObjectiveImmunocompromised patients have an increased risk of a severe form of COVID-19. The clinical efficacy of the tixagevimab/cilgavimab monoclonal antibody combination as pre-exposure prophylaxis against BA.1 and BA.2 SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages is unknown. We aimed to describe the incidence and outcomes of COVID-19 among immunocompromised patients receiving tixagevimab/cilgavimab as preexposure prophylaxis during the Omicron wave in France.MethodsThis was an observational multicentre cohort study of immunocompromised patients receiving tixagevimab/cilgavimab as preexposure prophylaxis between December 28, 2021 and March 31, 2022. Patients received tixagevimab/cilgavimab 150/150 mg intramuscularly if they had impaired vaccine response and a high risk of severe form of COVID-19.ResultsTixagevimab/cilgavimab was administered to 1112 immunocompromised patients. After a median (range) follow-up of 63 (49–73) days, COVID-19 was confirmed in 49/1112 (4.4%) ≥5 days after treatment. During the study period, mean weekly incidence rate was 1669 in 100 000 inhabitants in Ile-de-France and 530 in 100 000 among patients who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab prophylaxis. Among infected patients, 43/49 (88%) had a mild-to-moderate form and 6/49 (12%) had a moderate-to-severe form of COVID-19. Patients with moderate-to-severe illnesses were less likely to have received early therapies than patients with mild forms (53.5% vs. 16.7% respectively) and 2/49 (4%) patients died from COVID-19.DiscussionOur study reported a low rate of infections and severe illnesses among immunocompromised patients treated with tixagevimab/cilgavimab. A global preventive strategy including vaccines, preexposure prophylaxis with monoclonal antibodies, and early therapies might be effective to prevent severe forms of COVID-19 among severely immunocompromised patients.     

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response after 2 and 3 doses of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in patients with lymphoid malignancies

ObjectivesCOVID-19 patients affected by haematological malignancies have a more severe course of the disease and higher mortality, prompting for effective prophylaxis. The present study aims to evaluate the humoral response after mRNA vaccination as well as the impact of a third vaccine dose in patients with lymphoid malignancies.MethodsWe conducted a single-centre study, evaluating the serological responses of mRNA vaccination amongst a cohort of 200 patients affected by lymphoid malignancies after two or three doses using an industrial SARS-CoV-2 serology assay for anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) Spike IgG detection and quantification.ResultsAmong patients with plasma cell disorders, 59 of 96 (61%) had seroconversion (anti-RBD >50 AU/mL), and recent anti-CD38 therapies were associated with lower serological anti-RBD IgG concentrations (median IgG concentration 137 (IQR 0–512) AU/mL vs. 543 (IQR 35–3496) AU/mL; p < 0.001). Patients with B-cell malignancies had a lower seroconversion rate (20/84, 24%) mainly due to the broad usage of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies; only 2 of 53 (4%) patients treated by anti-CD20 antibodies during the last 12 months experienced a seroconversion. A total of 78 patients (44 with plasma cell disorders, 27 with B-cell malignancies, and 7 with other lymphomas) received a third dose of vaccine. The seroconversion rate and antibody concentrations increased significantly, especially in patients with plasma cell disorders, where an increment of anti-RBD IgG concentrations was observed in 31 of 44 (70%) patients, with an anti-RBD concentration median-fold increase of 10.6 (IQR 2.4–25.5). Its benefit in B-cell malignancies is uncertain, with only 2 of 25 (8%) patients having seroconverted after the vaccine booster, without increased median antibody concentration.DiscussionA third mRNA vaccine dose significantly improved humoral responses among patients with plasma cell disorders, whereas the effect was limited among patients with B-cell malignancies.     

Different performance of three point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection devices in symptomatic patients and close asymptomatic contacts: a real-life study

ObjectivesPCR on nasopharyngeal exudates, the cornerstone of the detection of SARS-CoV-2, is time-consuming and commonly unavailable at primary health care centres. Detection of viral nucleocapsid antigens using lateral flow point-of-care tests is helpful for the early triage of patients who attend health care facilities.MethodsThis was a prospective study carried out in clinically suspected cases and close asymptomatic contacts who attended a primary care centre (Madrid, Spain) for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Patients were divided into three 300-patient cohorts (n = 200 symptomatic cases and n = 100 close asymptomatic contacts per cohort). Three antigen detection tests (SGTI-Flex COVID-19 Ag, Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device, and GSD NovaGen SARS-CoV-2 Ag Rapid Test) were used and compared. Paired nasopharyngeal exudates were obtained, one swab for PCR and the other for antigen detection. Each antigen detection test was evaluated on one cohort.ResultsAll tests showed invariably 100% specificity. Sensitivity was 68.9% (95% CI: 55.7–80; SGTI-Flex), 71.1% (95% CI: 55.6–83.6; Panbio), and 84.6% (95% CI: 72–93.1; NovaGen) in clinically suspected patients and 84.6% (95% CI: 54.5–98.1), 33.3% (95% CI: 11.8–61.6), and 55.6% (95% CI: 30.7–78.4) in close asymptomatic contacts, respectively. Sensitivity was systematically higher in samples yielding positive PCR results with Ct ≤ 20.DiscussionWe found considerable test-to-test antigen detection variations among patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 and close asymptomatic contacts. Negative antigen results, regardless of the test used, should be confirmed by PCR.     

Diagnostic performance of seven rapid IgG/IgM antibody tests and the Euroimmun IgA/IgG ELISA in COVID-19 patients

ObjectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of seven rapid IgG/IgM tests and the Euroimmun IgA/IgG ELISA for antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in COVID-19 patients.MethodsSpecificity was evaluated in 103 samples collected before January 2020. Sensitivity and time to seropositivity was evaluated in 167 samples from 94 patients with COVID-19 confirmed with RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swab.ResultsSpecificity (confidence interval) of lateral flow assays (LFAs) was ≥91.3% (84.0–95.5) for IgM, ≥90.3% (82.9–94.8) for IgG, and ≥85.4% (77.2–91.1) for the combination IgM OR IgG. Specificity of the ELISA was 96.1% (90.1–98.8) for IgG and only 73.8% (64.5–81.4) for IgA. Sensitivity 14–25 days after the onset of symptoms was between ≥92.1% (78.5–98.0) and 100% (95.7–100) for IgG LFA compared to 89.5% (75.3–96.4) for IgG ELISA. Positivity of IgM OR IgG for LFA resulted in a decrease in specificity compared to IgG alone without a gain in diagnostic performance, except for VivaDiag. The results for IgM varied significantly between the LFAs with an average overall agreement of only 70% compared to 89% for IgG. The average dynamic trend to seropositivity for IgM was not shorter than for IgG. At the time of hospital admission the sensitivity of LFA was <60%.ConclusionsSensitivity for the detection of IgG antibodies 14–25 days after the onset of symptoms was ≥92.1% for all seven LFAs compared to 89.5% for the IgG ELISA. The results for IgM varied significantly, and including IgM antibodies in addition to IgG for the interpretation of LFAs did not improve the diagnostic performance.     

Inhaled ciclesonide for outpatient treatment of COVID-19 in adults at risk of adverse outcomes: a randomised controlled trial (COVERAGE)

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy of inhaled ciclesonide in reducing the risk of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 outpatients at risk of developing severe illness.MethodsCOVERAGE is an open-label, randomized controlled trial. Outpatients with documented COVID-19, risk factors for aggravation, symptoms for ≤7 days, and absence of criteria for hospitalization are randomly allocated to either a control arm or one of several experimental arms, including inhaled ciclesonide. The primary efficacy endpoint is COVID-19 worsening (hospitalization, oxygen therapy at home, or death) by Day 14. Other endpoints are adverse events, maximal follow-up score on the WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement, sustained alleviation of symptoms, cure, and RT-PCR and blood parameter evolution at Day 7. The trial's Safety Monitoring Board reviewed the first interim analysis of the ciclesonide arm and recommended halting it for futility. The results of this analysis are reported here.ResultsThe analysis involved 217 participants (control 107, ciclesonide 110), including 111 women and 106 men. Their median age was 63 years (interquartile range 59–68), and 157 of 217 (72.4%) had at least one comorbidity. The median time since first symptom was 4 days (interquartile range 3–5). During the 28-day follow-up, 2 participants died (control 2/107 [1.9%], ciclesonide 0), 4 received oxygen therapy at home and were not hospitalized (control 2/107 [1.9%], ciclesonide 2/110 [1.8%]), and 24 were hospitalized (control 10/107 [9.3%], ciclesonide 14/110 [12.7%]). In intent-to-treat analysis of observed data, 26 participants reached the composite primary endpoint by Day 14, including 12 of 106 (11.3%, 95% CI: 6.0%–18.9%) in the control arm and 14 of 106 (13.2%; 95% CI: 7.4–21.2%) in the ciclesonide arm. Secondary outcomes were similar for both arms.DiscussionOur findings are consistent with the European Medicines Agency's COVID-19 task force statement that there is currently insufficient evidence that inhaled corticosteroids are beneficial for patients with COVID-19.     

N-antigenemia detection by a rapid lateral flow test predicts 90-day mortality in COVID-19: A prospective cohort study

ObjectivesTo evaluate if the detection of N antigen of SARS-CoV-2 in plasma by a rapid lateral flow test predicts 90-day mortality in COVID-19 patients hospitalized at the wards.MethodsThe presence of N-antigenemia was evaluated in the first 36 hours after hospitalization in 600 unvaccinated COVID-19 patients, by using the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device from Abbott (Abbott Laboratories Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The impact of N-antigenemia on 90-day mortality was assessed by multivariable Cox regression analysis.ResultsPrevalence of N-antigenemia at hospitalization was higher in nonsurvivors (69% (82/118) vs. 52% (250/482); p < 0.001). The patients with N-antigenemia showed more frequently RNAemia (45.7% (148/324) vs. 19.8% (51/257); p < 0.001), absence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 N antibodies (80.7% (264/327) vs. 26.6% (69/259); p < 0.001) and absence of S1 antibodies (73.4% (240/327) vs. 23.6% (61/259); p < 0.001). The patients with antigenemia showed more frequently acute respiratory distress syndrome (30.1% (100/332) vs. 18.7% (50/268); p = 0.001) and nosocomial infections (13.6% (45/331) vs. 7.9% (21/267); p = 0.026). N-antigenemia was a risk factor for increased 90-day mortality in the multivariable analysis (HR, 1.99 (95% CI,1.09–3.61), whereas the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 N-antibodies represented a protective factor (HR, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.26–0.85).DiscussionThe presence of N-antigenemia or the absence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 N-antibodies after hospitalization is associated to increased 90-day mortality in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients. Detection of N-antigenemia by using lateral flow tests is a quick, widely available tool that could contribute to early identify those COVID-19 patients at risk of deterioration.     

The Prevalence of Depression,Anxiety and Associated Factors among the General Public during COVID-19 Pandemic: a Cross-sectional Study in Korea

BackgroundSince its first case confirmed on January 20, 2020, Korea has been through three waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Fears of the fourth wave persist as new cases continue to emerge. In such unpredictable times, the mental well-being of people is of crucial importance. This study examined the levels of depression and anxiety and their predictors among the Korean general public in Busan, Korea, during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study via a self-reported questionnaire administered to 2,288 adult residents (aged 19–60 years) of Busan, Korea. Participants'' depression and anxiety were assessed using the Korean version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), which consists of PHQ-2 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2), with the cutoff score of 3.ResultsThe mean age of the participants was 39.71 years. COVID-19 had several psychosocial impacts on people. It was revealed that 80.3% had restrictions in outside activities, 47.3% reported financial difficulties, and 53.6% had a fear of death or fatal outcome when infected with COVID-19. We performed logistic regression analysis to identify the factors associated with depression and anxiety. A total of 30.7% participants were classified as at risk of depression based on cutoff score of 3 on PHQ-2. Logistic regression analysis revealed that changes in sleep pattern due to COVID-19 were most strongly associated with depression, followed by restrictions in outside activities due to social distancing and increased family conflicts due to COVID-19. Also, 22.6% participants were classified as at risk of anxiety based on a cutoff score of 3 on GAD-2. Analysis revealed that changes in sleep pattern due to COVID-19 were most strongly associated with anxiety, followed by spending a lot of time searching for COVID-19-related information and having a fear of death or fatal outcome when infected with COVID-19.ConclusionThe results are alarming; 30.7% had a PHQ-2 score of 3 or higher, indicating depression, and 22.6% had a GAD-2 score of 3 or higher, indicating anxiety. Changes in sleep pattern had the strongest association with both depression and anxiety. Our results can be used to formulate mental health policies tailored to the context of the city. Our findings suggest the high prevalence of depression and anxiety in the society during the COVID-19 pandemic, which places growing importance on early intervention for mental health problems during these times.