The rapid and highly parallel identification of antibodies with defined biological activities by SLISY.

The therapeutic applications of antibodies are manifold and the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 provides a cogent example of the value of rapidly identifying biologically active antibodies. We describe an approach called SLISY (Sequencing-Linked ImmunoSorbent assaY) that in a single experiment can assess the binding specificity of millions of clones, be applied to any screen that links DNA sequence to a potential binding moiety, and requires only a single round of biopanning. We demonstrate this approach using an scFv library applied to cellular and protein targets to identify specific or broadly reacting antibodies. For a cellular target, we use paired HLA knockout cell lines to identify a panel of antibodies specific to HLA-A3. For a protein target, SLISY identifies 1279 clones that bound to the Receptor Binding Domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, with >40% of tested clones also neutralizing its interaction with ACE2 in in vitro assays. Using a multi-comparison SLISY against the Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants, we recovered clones that exhibited broad-spectrum neutralizing potential in vitro. By evaluating millions of scFvs simultaneously against multiple targets, SLISY allows the rapid identification of candidate scFvs with defined binding profiles facilitating the identification of antibodies with the desired biological activity.

TOCILIZUMAB for GIANT CELL ARTERITIS: BASELINE and TWELVE MONTH AUDIT DATA from the UK BRISTOL and BATH MULTIDISCIPLINARY MEETING

Background: Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA) is a systemic vasculitis involving large and medium-sized blood vessels. Treatment is with high dose glucocorticoids. Steroid-sparing agents and Tocilizumab (TCZ) are used for refractory or relapsing cases. NHS England requires all GCA patients to be discussed in a regional multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) prior to commencing TCZ. TCZ has only been permitted for a maximum of one year;this time limitation was extended during the Covid-19 pandemic (1). The monthly virtual Bristol and Bath regional MDT started in November 2018. Objectives: We aimed to review: 1) Baseline data on all patients referred to the Bristol and Bath TCZ for GCA MDT, including demographics, clinical presentation and previous steroid-sparing agents used and 2) 12 month follow up data including number of completions, adverse effects, and fares on treatment. Methods: The TCZ MDT referral proforma, adapted from the NHS England Blueteq approval form, was reviewed for all patients referred. 12 month follow up data was obtained from clinic letters. Results: Baseline data Thirty-eight cases were referred between November 2018 and September 2021. Of these, 31 were approved for TCZ usage;100% fulflled the criteria for either refractory (n=11) or relapsing (n=20) disease. Mean age was 74 years and 74.2% were female. Average disease duration was 161.5 days for the refractory and 827.3 days for the relapsing group. 77.4% had cranial GCA, 48.4% had large vessel involvement, 45.2% had visual symptoms and 25.8% had ischaemic visual loss. The positive investigations were PET-CT (48.4%), temporal artery ultrasound (41.9%) and temporal artery biopsy (32.3%). 64.5% had trialled a steroid-sparing agent at time of referral (61.3 % metho-trexate, 9.7% azathioprine, 6.5% lefunomide), 35.5% had received intravenous methylprednisolone and 58% were receiving greater than 40mg prednisolone at the time of referral. Glucocorticoid adverse effects of osteoporosis, weight gain, cataracts and hypertension were each seen in 19.4%;whilst diabetes, neuropsychiatric symptoms and sleep disturbance were each reported in 16.1%. Those with ocular involvement tended to be referred earlier than those without (478.2 days vs 648.1 days), were referred on higher doses of glucocorticoids (71.4% vs 47.1% on ≥ 40mg) and had less steroid-sparing agents prior to referral. Follow up data In December 2021, a follow-up audit revealed 14/31 patients had completed at least 12 months of tocilizumab;5 of these had had an extension under Covid-19 exceptional guidance (mean duration of 5.2 months). Of the remaining 17: 3 patients had stopped early (1 death, 1 moved away, 1 due to adverse effects of headache and gastro-intestinal side effects), 4 had not started tocilizumab and 10 had not completed 12 months of treatment at that point. Adverse events in the 14 patients at 12 months included: liver abnormalities (2/14;14.3%), neutropenia (2/14;14.3%), thrombocytopaenia (1/14;7.1%), soft tissue infections (3/14;21.4%), urinary tract infection (1/14;7.1%) and lipid derangement (4/14 28.6%). One case of GCA relapse occurred on TCZ (mild headache and raised infammatory markers settled on small increase in prednisolone). After 12 months, mean prednisolone dose was 3mg (range 0-15mg). Conclusion: All patients approved for Tocilizumab in the GCA MDT fulflled NHS England criteria for either relapsing or refractory disease. The majority of cases had cranial disease, but almost half had either ocular or large vessel involvement, refecting a severe spectrum of disease. Cases showed a high burden of glucocorticoid toxicity. Follow up data suggests that TCZ was effective in allowing glucocorticoid weaning and disease control, but with some adverse effects. Future work to follow up patients after stopping Tocilizumab would be informative, as the twelve month limitation on treatment is likely to be re-instated.

Feasibility of telephone-based cardiology consultation: Comparison of resource use and outcomes vs in-person consultation

Introduction: The COVID-19 (Coronavirus infectious disease 2019) pandemic has highlighted the need for alternative modalities to connect with outpatients beyond in-person clinic visits. In the present study, we evaluated the feasibility of a telephone-based teleconsultation cardiology service and compared the use of testing and outcomes between teleconsultation and traditional in-office consultations Methods: The study took place prior to the COVID-19 pandemic July 2019 to March 2020. Consult lists were reviewed by a cardiologist for patients appropriate for teleconsultation. Those patients were contacted directly and, if agreeable, a consultation was completed and any required testing was arranged. A series of patients seen in the clinic, matched for a reason for consultation and consulting a cardiologist, were compared in terms of testing frequency and outcomes. Results: Of 157 patients who felt appropriate for teleconsultation, 100 (63.7%) were successfully contacted and a teleconsultation was completed. Comparing patients undergoing teleconsultation with a matched series of patients seen in person in the clinic, there were no significant differences in testing utilization or outcomes, including emergency room or hospital admission within 30 days of consultation or death or adverse cardiac events at six months following consultation. Conclusion: Telemedicine can be successfully utilized as an alternative to traditional clinic consultation for selected patients needing cardiology consultation. This consultative modality does not appear to lead to utilization of increased testing or decreased quality or patient outcomes. Larger studies are needed to assess this mode of consultation. © 2021 Matsumura et al.

Use of face coverings by the public during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study (preprint)

Public health agencies have recommended that the public wear face coverings, including face masks, to mitigate COVID-19 transmission. However, the extent to which the public has adopted this recommendation is unknown. An observational study of 3,271 members of the public in May and June 2020 examined face covering use at grocery stores across Wisconsin. We found that only 41.2% used face coverings. Individuals who appeared to be female or older adults had higher odds of using face coverings. Additionally, location-specific variables such as expensiveness of store, county-level population and county-level COVID-19 case prevalence were associated with increased odds of using face coverings. To our knowledge, this is the first direct observational study examining face covering behavior by the public in the U.S., and our findings have implications for public health agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.