Clinical evaluation of commercial SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in a malaria endemic setting.

The levels of immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination are poorly understood in African populations and is complicated by cross-reactivity to endemic pathogens as well as differences in host responsiveness. To begin to determine the best approach to minimize false positive antibody levels to SARS-CoV-2 in an African population, we evaluated three commercial assays, namely Bio-Rad Platelia SARS-CoV-2 Total Antibody (Platelia), Quanterix Simoa Semi-Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibody Test (anti-Spike), and the GenScript cPass™ SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit (cPass) using samples collected in Mali in West Africa prior to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. A total of one hundred samples were assayed. The samples were categorized in two groups based on the presence or absence of clinical malaria. Overall, thirteen out of one hundred (13/100) samples were false positives with the Bio-Rad Platelia assay and one of the same one hundred (1/100) was a false positive with the anti-Spike IgG Quanterix assay. None of the samples tested with the GenScript cPass assay were positive. False positives were more common in the clinical malaria group, 10/50 (20%) vs. the non-malaria group 3/50 (6%); p = 0.0374 using the Bio-Rad Platelia assay. Association between false positive results and parasitemia by Bio-Rad remained evident, after adjusting for age and sex in multivariate analyses. In summary, the impact of clinical malaria on assay performance appears to depend on the assay and/or antigen being used. A careful evaluation of any given assay in the local context is a prerequisite for reliable serological assessment of anti-SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity.

Viral co-infections are associated with increased rates of hospitalization in those with influenza.

BACKGROUND: Influenza causes significant morbidity and mortality in the United States. Among patients infected with influenza, the presence of bacterial co-infection is associated with worse clinical outcomes; less is known regarding the clinical importance of viral co-infections. The objective of this study was to determine rates of viral co-infections in emergency department (ED) patients with confirmed influenza and association of co-infection with disease severity. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a biorepository and clinical database from a parent study where rapid influenza testing was implemented in four U.S. academic EDs, during the 2014-2015 influenza season. Patients were systematically tested for influenza virus using a validated clinical decision guideline. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from medical records; nasopharyngeal specimens from influenza-positive patients were tested for viral co-infections (ePlex, Genmark Diagnostics). Patterns of viral co-infections were evaluated using chi-square analysis. The association of viral co-infection with hospital admission was assessed using univariate and multivariate regression. RESULTS: The overall influenza A/B positivity rate was 18.1% (1071/5919). Of the 999 samples with ePlex results, the prevalence of viral co-infections was 7.9% (79/999). The most common viral co-infection was rhinovirus/enterovirus (RhV/EV), at 3.9% (39/999). The odds of hospital admission (OR 2.33, 95% CI: 1.01-5.34) increased significantly for those with viral co-infections (other than RhV/EV) versus those with influenza A infection only. CONCLUSION: Presence of viral co-infection (other than RhV/EV) in ED influenza A/B positive patients was independently associated with increased risk of hospital admission. Further research is needed to determine clinical utility of ED multiplex testing.

Design of an observational multi-country cohort study to assess immunogenicity of multiple vaccine platforms (InVITE).

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 vaccines have been developed, and the World Health Oraganization (WHO) has granted emergency use listing to multiple vaccines. Studies of vaccine immunogenicity data from implementing COVID-19 vaccines by national immunization programs in single studies spanning multiple countries and continents are limited but critically needed to answer public health questions on vaccines, such as comparing immune responses to different vaccines and among different populations.

Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity among Emergency Department Healthcare Workers at a Tertiary Care Center in Baltimore.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic (March-July 2020 in Baltimore), emergency department (ED) healthcare workers (HCWs) were considered to be at greater risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. Limited data existed, however, on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its impact in this workforce population. We enrolled 191 ED HCWs from a tertiary academic center, administered baseline and weekly surveys, and tested them twice (July and December 2020) for serum antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Approximately 6% (11 of 191, 5.8%) of ED HCWs had spike antibodies in July, a prevalence that doubled by December (21 of 174, 12.1%). A positive PCR test was self-reported by 15 of 21 (71%) seropositive and 6 of 153 (4%) seronegative HCWs (p < 0.001). Of the total 27 HCWs who had antibodies and/or were PCR positive, none required hospitalization, 18 (67%) had a self-perceived COVID-19 illness, and 12 of the 18 reported symptoms. The median number of missed workdays was 8.5 (ranging from 2 to 21). While most seropositive ED HCWs who reported symptoms took work absences, none required hospitalization, indicating that COVID-19's impact on staffing prior to vaccination was not as great as feared.

Responses to a Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 According to Baseline Antibody and Antigen Levels : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, bamlanivimab, a SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, given in combination with remdesivir, did not improve outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on an early futility assessment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the a priori hypothesis that bamlanivimab has greater benefit in patients without detectable levels of endogenous neutralizing antibody (nAb) at study entry than in those with antibodies, especially if viral levels are high. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multicenter trial. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. INTERVENTION: Bamlanivimab (7000 mg) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Antibody, antigen, and viral RNA levels were centrally measured on stored specimens collected at baseline. Patients were followed for 90 days for sustained recovery (defined as discharge to home and remaining home for 14 consecutive days) and a composite safety outcome (death, serious adverse events, organ failure, or serious infections). RESULTS: Among 314 participants (163 receiving bamlanivimab and 151 placebo), the median time to sustained recovery was 19 days and did not differ between the bamlanivimab and placebo groups (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.22]; sHR > 1 favors bamlanivimab). At entry, 50% evidenced production of anti-spike nAbs; 50% had SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid plasma antigen levels of at least 1000 ng/L. Among those without and with nAbs at study entry, the sHRs were 1.24 (CI, 0.90 to 1.70) and 0.74 (CI, 0.54 to 1.00), respectively (nominal P for interaction = 0.018). The sHR (bamlanivimab vs. placebo) was also more than 1 for those with plasma antigen or nasal viral RNA levels above median level at entry and was greatest for those without antibodies and with elevated levels of antigen (sHR, 1.48 [CI, 0.99 to 2.23]) or viral RNA (sHR, 1.89 [CI, 1.23 to 2.91]). Hazard ratios for the composite safety outcome (<1 favors bamlanivimab) also differed by serostatus at entry: 0.67 (CI, 0.37 to 1.20) for those without and 1.79 (CI, 0.92 to 3.48) for those with nAbs. LIMITATION: Subgroup analysis of a trial prematurely stopped because of futility; small sample size; multiple subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab may differ depending on whether an endogenous nAb response has been mounted. The limited sample size of the study does not allow firm conclusions based on these findings, and further independent trials are required that assess other types of passive immune therapies in the same patient setting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Differential Cytokine Signatures of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Influenza Infection Highlight Key Differences in Pathobiology.

BACKGROUND: Several inflammatory cytokines are upregulated in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We compared cytokines in COVID-19 versus influenza to define differentiating features of the inflammatory response to these pathogens and their association with severe disease. Because elevated body mass index (BMI) is a known risk factor for severe COVID-19, we examined the relationship of BMI to cytokines associated with severe disease. METHODS: Thirty-seven cytokines and chemokines were measured in plasma from 135 patients with COVID-19, 57 patients with influenza, and 30 healthy controls. Controlling for BMI, age, and sex, differences in cytokines between groups were determined by linear regression and random forest prediction was used to determine the cytokines most important in distinguishing severe COVID-19 and influenza. Mediation analysis was used to identify cytokines that mediate the effect of BMI and age on disease severity. RESULTS: Interleukin-18 (IL-18), IL-1ß, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were significantly increased in COVID-19 versus influenza patients, whereas granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor, interferon-γ (IFN-γ), IFN-λ1, IL-10, IL-15, and monocyte chemoattractant protein 2 were significantly elevated in the influenza group. In subgroup analysis based on disease severity, IL-18, IL-6, and TNF-α were elevated in severe COVID-19, but not in severe influenza. Random forest analysis identified high IL-6 and low IFN-λ1 levels as the most distinct between severe COVID-19 and severe influenza. Finally, IL-1RA was identified as a potential mediator of the effects of BMI on COVID-19 severity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings point to activation of fundamentally different innate immune pathways in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and influenza infection, and emphasize drivers of severe COVID-19 to focus both mechanistic and therapeutic investigations.

Identification of pathogens from the upper respiratory tract of adult emergency department patients at high risk for influenza complications in a pre-Sars-CoV-2 environment.

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and subsequent COVID-19 pandemic highlights the morbidity and potential disease severity caused by respiratory viruses. To elucidate pathogen prevalence, etiology of coinfections and URIs from symptomatic adult Emergency department patients in a pre-SARS-CoV-2 environment, we evaluated specimens from four geographically diverse Emergency departments in the United States from 2013-2014 utilizing ePlex RP RUO cartridges (Genmark Diagnostics). The overall positivity was 30.1% (241/799), with 6.6% (16/241) coinfections. Noninfluenza pathogens from most to least common were rhinovirus/enterovirus, coronavirus, human metapneumovirus and RSV, respectively. Broad differences in disease prevalence and pathogen distributions were observed across geographic regions; the site with the highest detection rate (for both mono and coinfections) demonstrated the greatest pathogen diversity. A variety of respiratory pathogens and geographic variations in disease prevalence and copathogen type were observed. Further research is required to evaluate the clinical relevance of these findings, especially considering the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and related questions regarding SARS-CoV-2 disease severity and the presence of co-infections.

Highly multiplexed oligonucleotide probe-ligation testing enables efficient extraction-free SARS-CoV-2 detection and viral genotyping.

There is an urgent and unprecedented need for sensitive and high-throughput molecular diagnostic tests to combat the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Here we present a generalized version of the RNA-mediated oligonucleotide Annealing Selection and Ligation with next generation DNA sequencing (RASL-seq) assay, called "capture RASL-seq" (cRASL-seq), which enables highly sensitive (down to ~1-100 pfu/ml or cfu/ml) and highly multiplexed (up to ~10,000 target sequences) detection of pathogens. Importantly, cRASL-seq analysis of COVID-19 patient nasopharyngeal (NP) swab specimens does not involve nucleic acid purification or reverse transcription, steps that have introduced supply bottlenecks into standard assay workflows. Our simplified protocol additionally enables the direct and efficient genotyping of selected, informative SARS-CoV-2 polymorphisms across the entire genome, which can be used for enhanced characterization of transmission chains at population scale and detection of viral clades with higher or lower virulence. Given its extremely low per-sample cost, simple and automatable protocol and analytics, probe panel modularity, and massive scalability, we propose that cRASL-seq testing is a powerful new technology with the potential to help mitigate the current pandemic and prevent similar public health crises.

Evaluation of Serological SARS-CoV-2 Lateral Flow Assays for Rapid Point-of-Care Testing.

Rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibodies vary in performance. A critical need exists to perform head-to-head comparisons of these assays. The performances of 15 different lateral flow POCTs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were compared on a well-characterized set of 100 samples. Of these, 40 samples from known SARS-CoV-2-infected, convalescent individuals (collected an average of 45 days after symptom onset) were used to assess sensitivity. Sixty samples from the prepandemic era (negative control) that were known to represent infections with other respiratory viruses (rhinoviruses A, B, and C and/or coronavirus 229E, HKU1, and NL63 OC43) were used to assess specificity. The timing of seroconversion was assessed using five lateral flow assays (LFAs) and a panel of 272 longitudinal samples from 47 patients for whom the time since symptom onset was known. Among the assays that were evaluated, the sensitivity and specificity for any reactive band ranged from 55% to 97% and from 78% to 100%, respectively. Assessing the performance of the IgM and the IgG bands alone, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0% to 88% and 80% to 100% for IgM and from 25% to 95% and 90% to 100% for IgG, respectively. Longitudinal testing revealed that the median times after symptom onset to a positive result were 7 days (interquartile range [IQR], 5.4 to 9.8) for IgM and 8.2 days (IQR, 6.3 to 11.3) for IgG. The testing performances differed widely among LFAs, with greatest amount of variation related to the sensitivity of the assays. The IgM band was the band most likely to misclassify prepandemic samples. The appearances of IgM and IgG bands occurred almost simultaneously.

Respiratory pathogen diversity and co-infections in rural Zambia.

OBJECTIVES: The role of respiratory co-infections in modulating disease severity remains understudied in southern Africa, particularly in rural areas. This study was performed to characterize the spectrum of respiratory pathogens in rural southern Zambia and the prognostic impact of co-infections. METHODS: Respiratory specimens collected from inpatient and outpatient participants in a viral surveillance program in 2018-2019 were tested for selected viruses and atypical bacteria using the Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV assay and FilmArray Respiratory Panel EZ. Participants were followed for 3-5 weeks to assess their clinical course. Multivariable regression was used to examine the role of co-infections in influencing disease severity. RESULTS: A respiratory pathogen was detected in 63.2% of samples from 671 participants who presented with influenza-like illness. Common pathogens identified included influenza virus (18.2% of samples), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) (11.8%), rhinovirus (26.4%), and coronavirus (6.0%). Overall, 6.4% of participants were co-infected with multiple respiratory pathogens. Compared to mono-infections, co-infections were found not to be associated with severe clinical illness either overall (relative risk (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-1.32) or specifically with influenza virus (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.14-4.46) or RSV infections (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.17-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory infections in rural southern Zambia were associated with a wide range of viruses. Respiratory co-infections in this population were not associated with clinical severity.

Evaluation of Serological SARS-CoV-2 Lateral Flow Assays for Rapid Point of Care Testing.

BACKGROUND: Rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies vary in performance. A critical need exists to perform head-to-head comparison of these assays. METHODS: Performance of fifteen different lateral flow POCTs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies was performed on a well characterized set of 100 samples. Of these, 40 samples from known SARS-CoV-2-infected, convalescent individuals (average of 45 days post symptom onset) were used to assess sensitivity. Sixty samples from the pre-pandemic era (negative control), that were known to have been infected with other respiratory viruses (rhinoviruses A, B, C and/or coronavirus 229E, HKU1, NL63 OC43) were used to assess specificity. The timing of seroconversion was assessed on five POCTs on a panel of 272 longitudinal samples from 47 patients of known time since symptom onset. RESULTS: For the assays that were evaluated, the sensitivity and specificity for any reactive band ranged from 55%-97% and 78%-100%, respectively. When assessing the performance of the IgM and the IgG bands alone, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0%-88% and 80%-100% for IgM and 25%-95% and 90%-100% for IgG. Longitudinal testing revealed that median time post symptom onset to a positive result was 7 days (IQR 5.4, 9.8) for IgM and 8.2 days (IQR 6.3 to 11.3). CONCLUSION: The testing performance varied widely among POCTs with most variation related to the sensitivity of the assays. The IgM band was most likely to misclassify pre-pandemic samples. The appearance of IgM and IgG bands occurred almost simultaneously.