Practical management of suspected hypersensitivity reactions to anti-tuberculosis drugs.

Tuberculosis (TB) is the commonest cause of death by a single infectious agent globally and ranks amongst the top ten causes of global mortality. The incidence of TB is highest in Low-Middle Income countries (LMICs). Prompt institution of, and compliance with, therapy are cornerstones for a favourable outcome in TB and to mitigate the risk of multiple drug resistant (MDR)-TB, which is challenging to treat. There is some evidence that adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to anti-TB drugs occur in over 60% and 3%-4% of patients respectively. Both ADRs and HSRs represent significant barriers to treatment adherence and are recognised risk factors for MDR-TB. HSRs to anti-TB drugs are usually cutaneous and benign, occur within few weeks after commencement of therapy and are likely to be T-cell mediated. Severe and systemic T-cell mediated HSRs and IgE mediated anaphylaxis to anti-TB drugs are relatively rare, but important to recognise and treat promptly. T-cell-mediated HSRs are more frequent amongst patients with co-existing HIV infection. Some patients develop multiple sensitisation to anti-TB drugs. Whilst skin tests, patch tests and in vitro diagnostics have been used in the investigation of HSRs to anti-TB drugs, their predictive value is not established, they are onerous, require specialist input of an allergist and are resource-dependent. This is compounded by the global, unmet demand for allergy specialists, particularly in low-income countries (LICs)/LMICs and now the challenging circumstances of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. This narrative review provides a critical analysis of the limited published evidence on this topic and proposes a cautious and pragmatic approach to optimise and standardise the management of HSRs to anti-TB drugs. This includes clinical risk stratification and a dual strategy involving sequential re-challenge and rapid drug desensitisation. Furthermore, a concerted international effort is needed to generate real-time data on ADRs, HSRs, safety and clinical outcomes of these interventions.

Remote Fingerstick Blood Collection for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Antibody Testing.

The rapid worldwide spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has propelled the rapid development of serologic tests that can detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. These have been used for studying the prevalence and spread of infection in different populations, and helping establish a recent diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and will likely be used to confirm humoral immunity after infection or vaccination. However, nearly all lab-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays require a serum sample from venous blood draw, limiting their applications and scalability. Here, we present a method that enables large-scale SARS-CoV-2 serologic studies by combining self or office collection of fingerprick blood with a volumetric absorptive microsampling device (Mitra, Neoteryx LLC) with a high-throughput electrochemiluminescence-based SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay (Roche Elecsys, Roche Diagnostics Inc) that is emergency use authorization approved for use on serum samples and widely used by clinical laboratories around the world. We found that the Roche Elecsys assay has a high dynamic range that allows for accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in serum samples diluted 1:20 as well as contrived dried blood extracts. Extracts of dried blood from Mitra devices acquired in a community seroprevalence study showed near identical sensitivity and specificity in detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies compared with neat sera using predefined thresholds for each specimen type. Overall, this study affirms the use of Mitra dried blood collection device with the Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay for remote or at-home testing as well as large-scale community seroprevalence studies.

High Seroprevalence of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Chelsea, Massachusetts.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing allows quantitative determination of disease prevalence, which is especially important in high-risk communities. We performed anonymized convenience sampling of 200 currently asymptomatic residents of Chelsea, the epicenter of COVID-19 illness in Massachusetts, by BioMedomics SARS-CoV-2 combined IgM-IgG point-of-care lateral flow immunoassay. The seroprevalence was 31.5% (17.5% IgM+IgG+, 9.0% IgM+IgG-, and 5.0% IgM-IgG+). Of the 200 participants, 50.5% reported no symptoms in the preceding 4 weeks, of which 24.8% (25/101) were seropositive, and 60% of these were IgM+IgG-. These data are the highest seroprevalence rates observed to date and highlight the significant burden of asymptomatic infection.

COVID-19-neutralizing antibodies predict disease severity and survival.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) exhibits variable symptom severity ranging from asymptomatic to life-threatening, yet the relationship between severity and the humoral immune response is poorly understood. We examined antibody responses in 113 COVID-19 patients and found that severe cases resulting in intubation or death exhibited increased inflammatory markers, lymphopenia, pro-inflammatory cytokines, and high anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody levels. Although anti-RBD immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels generally correlated with neutralization titer, quantitation of neutralization potency revealed that high potency was a predictor of survival. In addition to neutralization of wild-type SARS-CoV-2, patient sera were also able to neutralize the recently emerged SARS-CoV-2 mutant D614G, suggesting cross-protection from reinfection by either strain. However, SARS-CoV-2 sera generally lacked cross-neutralization to a highly homologous pre-emergent bat coronavirus, WIV1-CoV, which has not yet crossed the species barrier. These results highlight the importance of neutralizing humoral immunity on disease progression and the need to develop broadly protective interventions to prevent future coronavirus pandemics.

Analytical performance of lateral flow immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 exposure screening on venous and capillary blood samples.

OBJECTIVES: We validate the use of a lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) intended for rapid screening and qualitative detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG in serum, plasma, and whole blood, and compare results with ELISA. We also seek to establish the value of LFI testing on blood obtained from a capillary blood sample. METHODS: Samples collected by venous blood draw and finger stick were obtained from patients with SARS-CoV-2 detected by RT-qPCR and control patients. Samples were tested with Biolidics 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Detection Kit lateral flow immunoassay, and antibody calls were compared with ELISA. RESULTS: Biolidics LFI showed clinical sensitivity of 92% with venous blood at 7 days after PCR diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Test specificity was 92% for IgM and 100% for IgG. There was no significant difference in detecting IgM and IgG with Biolidics LFI and ELISA at D0 and D7 (p = 1.00), except for detection of IgM at D7 (p = 0.04). Capillary blood of SARS-CoV-2 patients showed 93% sensitivity for antibody detection. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical performance of Biolidics 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Detection Kit is comparable to ELISA and was consistent across sample types. This provides an opportunity for decentralized rapid testing and may allow point-of-care and longitudinal self-testing for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Clinical sensitivity and interpretation of PCR and serological COVID-19 diagnostics for patients presenting to the hospital.

The diagnosis of COVID-19 requires integration of clinical and laboratory data. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic assays play a central role in diagnosis and have fixed technical performance metrics. Interpretation becomes challenging because the clinical sensitivity changes as the virus clears and the immune response emerges. Our goal was to examine the clinical sensitivity of two most common SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test modalities, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serology, over the disease course to provide insight into their clinical interpretation in patients presenting to the hospital. We conducted a single-center, retrospective study. To derive clinical sensitivity of PCR, we identified 209 PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 patients with multiple PCR test results (624 total PCR tests) and calculated daily sensitivity from date of symptom onset or first positive test. Clinical sensitivity of PCR decreased with days post symptom onset with >90% clinical sensitivity during the first 5 days after symptom onset, 70%-71% from Days 9 to 11, and 30% at Day 21. To calculate daily clinical sensitivity by serology, we utilized 157 PCR-positive patients with a total of 197 specimens tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for IgM, IgG, and IgA anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. In contrast to PCR, serological sensitivity increased with days post symptom onset with >50% of patients seropositive by at least one antibody isotype after Day 7, >80% after Day 12, and 100% by Day 21. Taken together, PCR and serology are complimentary modalities that require time-dependent interpretation. Superimposition of sensitivities over time indicate that serology can function as a reliable diagnostic aid indicating recent or prior infection.

SARS-CoV-2-specific ELISA development.

Critical to managing the spread of COVID-19 is the ability to diagnose infection and define the acquired immune response across the population. While genomic tests for the novel Several Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detect the presence of viral RNA for a limited time frame, when the virus is shed in the upper respiratory tract, tests able to define exposure and infection beyond this short window of detectable viral replication are urgently needed. Following infection, antibodies are generated within days, providing a durable read-out and archive of exposure and infection. Several antibody tests have emerged to diagnose SARS-CoV-2. Here we report on a qualified quantitative ELISA assay that displays all the necessary characteristics for high-throughput sample analysis. Collectively, this test offers a quantitative opportunity to define both exposure and levels of immunity to SARS-CoV-2.