A randomized placebo-controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Passive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma may be the only available agent during the early phases of a pandemic. Here, we report safety and efficacy of high-titer convalescent plasma for COVID-19 pneumonia. Double-blinded randomized multicenter placebo-controlled trial of adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The intervention was COVID-19 convalescent plasma and placebo was saline allocated 2:1. The primary outcome was clinical status 14 days after the intervention evaluated on a clinical ordinal scale. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT04345289, 14/04/2020. The CCAP-2 trial was terminated prematurely due to futility. Of 147 patients randomized, we included 144 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population. The ordinal clinical status 14 days post-intervention was comparable between treatment groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-2.09). Results were consistent when evaluating clinical progression on an individual level 14 days after intervention (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.46-1.73). No significant differences in length of hospital stay, admission to ICU, frequency of severe adverse events or all-cause mortality during follow-up were found between the intervention and the placebo group. Infusion of convalescent plasma did not influence clinical progression, survival or length of hospitalization in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Effect of Influenza Vaccination on Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Prospective Cohort Study of 46†000 Healthcare Workers.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess whether influenza vaccination has an impact on the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A cohort of 46 112 healthcare workers were tested for antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and filled in a survey on COVID-19 symptoms, hospitalization, and influenza vaccination. RESULTS: The risk ratio of hospitalization due to SARS-CoV-2 for influenza vaccinated compared with unvaccinated participants was 1.00 for the seasonal vaccination in 2019/2020 (confidence interval, .56-1.78, P = 1.00). Likewise, no clinical effect of influenza vaccination on development of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was found. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings indicate that influenza vaccination does not affect the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19.

Optimization and evaluation of a live virus SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assay.

Virus neutralization assays provide a means to quantitate functional antibody responses that block virus infection. These assays are instrumental in defining vaccine and therapeutic antibody potency, immune evasion by viral variants, and post-infection immunity. Here we describe the development, optimization and evaluation of a live virus microneutralization assay specific for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this assay, SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolates are pre-incubated with serial diluted antibody and added to Vero E6 cells. Replicating virus is quantitated by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) targeting the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein and the standardized 50% virus inhibition titer calculated. We evaluated critical test parameters that include virus titration, assay linearity, number of cells, viral dose, incubation period post-inoculation, and normalization methods. Virus titration at 96 hours was determined optimal to account for different growth kinetics of clinical isolates. Nucleocapsid protein levels directly correlated with virus inoculum, with the strongest correlation at 24 hours post-inoculation. Variance was minimized by infecting a cell monolayer, rather than a cell suspension. Neutralization titers modestly decreased with increasing numbers of Vero E6 cells and virus amount. Application of two different normalization models effectively reduced the intermediate precision coefficient of variance to <16.5%. The SARS-CoV-2 microneutralization assay described and evaluated here is based on the influenza virus microneutralization assay described by WHO, and are proposed as a standard assay for comparing neutralization investigations.

Risk Factors for Being Seronegative following SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Large Cohort of Health Care Workers in Denmark.

Most individuals seroconvert after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but being seronegative is observed in 1 to 9%. We aimed to investigate the risk factors associated with being seronegative following PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a prospective cohort study, we screened health care workers (HCW) in the Capital Region of Denmark for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We performed three rounds of screening from April to October 2020 using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method targeting SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies. Data on all participants' PCR for SARS-CoV-2 RNA were captured from national registries. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models were applied to investigate the probability of being seronegative and the related risk factors, respectively. Of 36,583 HCW, 866 (2.4%) had a positive PCR before or during the study period. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 866 HCW was 42 (31 to 53) years, and 666 (77%) were female. After a median of 132 (range, 35 to 180) days, 21 (2.4%) of 866 were seronegative. In a multivariable model, independent risk factors for being seronegative were self-reported asymptomatic or mild infection hazard ratio (HR) of 6.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6 to 17; P < 0.001) and body mass index (BMI) of ≥30, HR 3.1 (95% CI, 1.1 to 8.8; P = 0.039). Only a few (2.4%) HCW were not seropositive. Asymptomatic or mild infection as well as a BMI above 30 were associated with being seronegative. Since the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 reduces the risk of reinfection, efforts to protect HCW with risk factors for being seronegative may be needed in future COVID-19 surges. IMPORTANCE Most individuals seroconvert after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but negative serology is observed in 1 to 9%. We found that asymptomatic or mild infection as well as a BMI above 30 were associated with being seronegative. Since the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 reduces the risk of reinfection, efforts to protect HCW with risk factors for being seronegative may be needed in future COVID-19 surges.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and reduced risk of reinfection through 6 months: a Danish observational cohort study of 44 000 healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: Antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are a key factor in protecting against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We examined longitudinal changes in seroprevalence in healthcare workers (HCWs) in Copenhagen and the protective effect of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: In this prospective study, screening for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (ELISA) was offered to HCWs three times over 6 months. HCW characteristics were obtained by questionnaires. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346186. RESULTS: From April to October 2020 we screened 44 698 HCWs, of whom 2811 were seropositive at least once. The seroprevalence increased from 4.0% (1501/37 452) to 7.4% (2022/27 457) during the period (p < 0.001) and was significantly higher than in non-HCWs. Frontline HCWs had a significantly increased risk of seropositivity compared to non-frontline HCWs, with risk ratios (RRs) at the three rounds of 1.49 (95%CI 1.34-1.65, p < 0.001), 1.52 (1.39-1.68, p < 0.001) and 1.50 (1.38-1.64, p < 0.001). The seroprevalence was 1.42- to 2.25-fold higher (p < 0.001) in HCWs from dedicated COVID-19 wards than in other frontline HCWs. Seropositive HCWs had an RR of 0.35 (0.15-0.85, p 0.012) of reinfection during the following 6 months, and 2115 out of 2248 (95%) of those who were seropositive during rounds one or two remained seropositive after 4-6 months. The 133 of 2248 participants (5.0%) who seroreverted were slightly older and reported fewer symptoms than other seropositive participants. CONCLUSIONS: HCWs remained at increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 during the 6-month period. Seropositivity against SARS-CoV-2 persisted for at least 6 months in the vast majority of HCWs and was associated with a significantly lower risk of reinfection.

A case of thrombocytopenia and multiple thromboses after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against SARS-CoV-2.

Recently, reports of severe thromboses, thrombocytopenia, and hemorrhage in persons vaccinated with the chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AZD1222, Vaxzevria; Oxford/AstraZeneca) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have emerged. We describe an otherwise healthy 30-year-old woman who developed thrombocytopenia, ecchymosis, portal vein thrombosis, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis the second week after she received the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. Extensive diagnostic workup for thrombosis predispositions showed heterozygosity for the prothrombin mutation, but no evidence of myeloproliferative neoplasia or infectious or autoimmune diseases. Her only temporary risk factor was long-term use of oral contraceptive pills (OCPs). Although both the prothrombin mutation and use of OCPs predispose to portal and cerebral vein thrombosis, the occurrence of multiple thromboses within a short time and the associated pattern of thrombocytopenia and consumption coagulopathy are highly unusual. A maximum 4T heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) score and a positive immunoassay for anti-platelet factor 4/heparin antibodies identified autoimmune HIT as a potential pathogenic mechanism. Although causality has not been established, our case emphasizes the importance of clinical awareness. Further studies of this potentially new clinical entity have suggested that it should be regarded as a vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia.

Comparison of 16 Serological SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassays in 16 Clinical Laboratories.

Serological assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to support clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigations. Recently, assays for large-scale detection of total antibodies (Ab), immunoglobulin G (IgG), and IgM against SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed, but there are limited data on the diagnostic accuracy of these assays. This study was a Danish national collaboration and evaluated 15 commercial and one in-house anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays in 16 laboratories. Sensitivity was evaluated using 150 samples from individuals with asymptomatic, mild, or moderate COVID-19, nonhospitalized or hospitalized, confirmed by nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT); samples were collected 13 to 73 days either from symptom onset or from positive NAAT (patients without symptoms). Specificity and cross-reactivity were evaluated in samples collected prior to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic from >586 blood donors and patients with autoimmune diseases, cytomegalovirus or Epstein-Barr virus infections, and acute viral infections. A specificity of ≥99% was achieved by all total-Ab and IgG assays except one, DiaSorin Liaison XL IgG (97.2%). Sensitivities in descending order were Wantai ELISA total Ab (96.7%), CUH-NOVO in-house ELISA total Ab (96.0%), Ortho Vitros total Ab (95.3%), YHLO iFlash IgG (94.0%), Ortho Vitros IgG (93.3%), Siemens Atellica total Ab (93.2%), Roche Elecsys total Ab (92.7%), Abbott Architect IgG (90.0%), Abbott Alinity IgG (median 88.0%), DiaSorin Liaison XL IgG (median 84.6%), Siemens Vista total Ab (81.0%), Euroimmun/ELISA IgG (78.0%), and Snibe Maglumi IgG (median 78.0%). However, confidence intervals overlapped for several assays. The IgM results were variable, with the Wantai IgM ELISA showing the highest sensitivity (82.7%) and specificity (99%). The rate of seropositivity increased with time from symptom onset and symptom severity.

Risk of COVID-19 in health-care workers in Denmark: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Health-care workers are thought to be highly exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in health-care workers and the proportion of seroconverted health-care workers with previous symptoms of COVID-19. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, screening was offered to health-care workers in the Capital Region of Denmark, including medical, nursing, and other students who were associated with hospitals in the region. Screening included point-of-care tests for IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Test results and participant characteristics were recorded. Results were compared with findings in blood donors in the Capital Region in the study period. FINDINGS: Between April 15 and April 23, 2020, we screened 29 295 health-care workers, of whom 28 792 (98·28%) provided their test results. We identified 1163 (4·04% [95% CI 3·82-4·27]) seropositive health-care workers. Seroprevalence was higher in health-care workers than in blood donors (142 [3·04%] of 4672; risk ratio [RR] 1·33 [95% CI 1·12-1·58]; p<0·001). Seroprevalence was higher in male health-care workers (331 [5·45%] of 6077) than in female health-care workers (832 [3·66%] of 22 715; RR 1·49 [1·31-1·68]; p<0·001). Frontline health-care workers working in hospitals had a significantly higher seroprevalence (779 [4·55%] of 16 356) than health-care workers in other settings (384 [3·29%] of 11 657; RR 1·38 [1·22-1·56]; p<0·001). Health-care workers working on dedicated COVID-19 wards (95 [7·19%] of 1321) had a significantly higher seroprevalence than other frontline health-care workers working in hospitals (696 [4·35%] of 15 983; RR 1·65 [1·34-2·03]; p<0·001). 622 [53·5%] of 1163 seropositive participants reported symptoms attributable to SARS-CoV-2. Loss of taste or smell was the symptom that was most strongly associated with seropositivity (377 [32·39%] of 1164 participants with this symptom were seropositive vs 786 [2·84%] of 27 628 without this symptom; RR 11·38 [10·22-12·68]). The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346186. INTERPRETATION: The prevalence of health-care workers with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was low but higher than in blood donors. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health-care workers was related to exposure to infected patients. More than half of seropositive health-care workers reported symptoms attributable to COVID-19. FUNDING: Lundbeck Foundation.

Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Fatality Rate by Real-time Antibody Screening of Blood Donors.

BACKGROUND: The pandemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has tremendous consequences for our societies. Knowledge of the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 is needed to accurately monitor the spread of the epidemic and to calculate the infection fatality rate (IFR). These measures may help the authorities make informed decisions and adjust the current societal interventions. The objective was to perform nationwide real-time seroprevalence surveying among blood donors as a tool to estimate previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and the population-based IFR. METHODS: Danish blood donors aged 17-69 years giving blood 6 April to 3 May were tested for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M and G antibodies using a commercial lateral flow test. Antibody status was compared between geographical areas, and an estimate of the IFR was calculated. Seroprevalence was adjusted for assay sensitivity and specificity taking the uncertainties of the test validation into account when reporting the 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The first 20 640 blood donors were tested, and a combined adjusted seroprevalence of 1.9% (95% CI, .8-2.3) was calculated. The seroprevalence differed across areas. Using available data on fatalities and population numbers, a combined IFR in patients <70 years is estimated at 89 per 100 000 (95% CI, 72-211) infections. CONCLUSIONS: The IFR was estimated to be slightly lower than previously reported from other countries not using seroprevalence data. The IFR is likely severalfold lower than the current estimate. We have initiated real-time nationwide anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveying of blood donations as a tool in monitoring the epidemic.