Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Cancer J ; 28(2): 151-156, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1764719

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: Because of significant adaptations forced by the COVID-19 pandemic, resultant changes within health care delivery and clinical research introduced the potential for evaluation of novel evidence generation approaches in oncology. On July 26 and 27, 2021, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, National Cancer Policy Forum hosted a virtual workshop entitled "Cancer Care and Cancer Research in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Workshop on Lessons Learned." This workshop examined changes in cancer care and cancer research that occurred in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and considered lessons learned from that experience. The goal was to identify what changes could improve the delivery of high-quality cancer care and the conduct of cancer clinical trials in the postpandemic era, with an emphasis on health equity. How can we sustain the valuable lessons learned that might accelerate progress and enhance clinical evidence generation for patients and clinicians? In this overview, we discuss ways in which the COVID-19 experience has catalyzed research efficiencies as well as fostered a broader array of trial design and research methods that may facilitate improved cancer drug development during the pandemic and beyond.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Medical Oncology , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics
2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(4): 584-590, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1709326

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: With limited severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing capacity in the United States at the start of the epidemic (January-March 2020), testing was focused on symptomatic patients with a travel history throughout February, obscuring the picture of SARS-CoV-2 seeding and community transmission. We sought to identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the early weeks of the US epidemic. METHODS: All of Us study participants in all 50 US states provided blood specimens during study visits from 2 January to 18 March 2020. Participants were considered seropositive if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies with the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA in a sequential testing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of these ELISAs and the net sensitivity and specificity of the sequential testing algorithm were estimated, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The estimated sensitivities of the Abbott and EUROIMMUN assays were 100% (107 of 107 [95% CI: 96.6%-100%]) and 90.7% (97 of 107 [83.5%-95.4%]), respectively, and the estimated specificities were 99.5% (995 of 1000 [98.8%-99.8%]) and 99.7% (997 of 1000 [99.1%-99.9%]), respectively. The net sensitivity and specificity of our sequential testing algorithm were 90.7% (97 of 107 [95% CI: 83.5%-95.4%]) and 100.0% (1000 of 1000 [99.6%-100%]), respectively. Of the 24 079 study participants with blood specimens from 2 January to 18 March 2020, 9 were seropositive, 7 before the first confirmed case in the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identified SARS-CoV-2 infections weeks before the first recognized cases in 5 US states.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Population Health , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
3.
Microbiol Spectr ; 10(1): e0156421, 2022 02 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1622004

ABSTRACT

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 created a crucial need for serology assays to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, which led to many serology assays entering the market. A trans-government collaboration was created in April 2020 to independently evaluate the performance of commercial SARS-CoV-2 serology assays and help inform U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory decisions. To assess assay performance, three evaluation panels with similar antibody titer distributions were assembled. Each panel consisted of 110 samples with positive (n = 30) serum samples with a wide range of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers and negative (n = 80) plasma and/or serum samples that were collected before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Each sample was characterized for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies against the spike protein using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). Samples were selected for the panel when there was agreement on seropositivity by laboratories at National Cancer Institute's Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (NCI-FNLCR) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The sensitivity and specificity of each assay were assessed to determine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) suitability. As of January 8, 2021, results from 91 evaluations were made publicly available (https://open.fda.gov/apis/device/covid19serology/, and https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/serology-surveillance/serology-test-evaluation.html). Sensitivity ranged from 27% to 100% for IgG (n = 81), from 10% to 100% for IgM (n = 74), and from 73% to 100% for total or pan-immunoglobulins (n = 5). The combined specificity ranged from 58% to 100% (n = 91). Approximately one-third (n = 27) of the assays evaluated are now authorized by FDA for emergency use. This collaboration established a framework for assay performance evaluation that could be used for future outbreaks and could serve as a model for other technologies. IMPORTANCE The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a crucial need for accurate serology assays to evaluate seroprevalence and antiviral immune responses. The initial flood of serology assays entering the market with inadequate performance emphasized the need for independent evaluation of commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays using performance evaluation panels to determine suitability for use under EUA. Through a government-wide collaborative network, 91 commercial SARS-CoV-2 serology assay evaluations were performed. Three evaluation panels with similar overall antibody titer distributions were assembled to evaluate performance. Nearly one-third of the assays evaluated met acceptable performance recommendations, and two assays had EUAs revoked and were removed from the U.S. market based on inadequate performance. Data for all serology assays evaluated are available at the FDA and CDC websites (https://open.fda.gov/apis/device/covid19serology/, and https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/serology-surveillance/serology-test-evaluation.html).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/blood , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Diagnostic Test Approval , Humans , Laboratories , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/analysis , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , United States/epidemiology , United States Food and Drug Administration
4.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(4): 584-590, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1269569

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: With limited severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing capacity in the United States at the start of the epidemic (January-March 2020), testing was focused on symptomatic patients with a travel history throughout February, obscuring the picture of SARS-CoV-2 seeding and community transmission. We sought to identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the early weeks of the US epidemic. METHODS: All of Us study participants in all 50 US states provided blood specimens during study visits from 2 January to 18 March 2020. Participants were considered seropositive if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies with the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA in a sequential testing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of these ELISAs and the net sensitivity and specificity of the sequential testing algorithm were estimated, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The estimated sensitivities of the Abbott and EUROIMMUN assays were 100% (107 of 107 [95% CI: 96.6%-100%]) and 90.7% (97 of 107 [83.5%-95.4%]), respectively, and the estimated specificities were 99.5% (995 of 1000 [98.8%-99.8%]) and 99.7% (997 of 1000 [99.1%-99.9%]), respectively. The net sensitivity and specificity of our sequential testing algorithm were 90.7% (97 of 107 [95% CI: 83.5%-95.4%]) and 100.0% (1000 of 1000 [99.6%-100%]), respectively. Of the 24 079 study participants with blood specimens from 2 January to 18 March 2020, 9 were seropositive, 7 before the first confirmed case in the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identified SARS-CoV-2 infections weeks before the first recognized cases in 5 US states.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Population Health , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
5.
JAMA Intern Med ; 181(5): 672-679, 2021 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1098863

ABSTRACT

Importance: Understanding the effect of serum antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on susceptibility to infection is important for identifying at-risk populations and could have implications for vaccine deployment. Objective: The study purpose was to evaluate evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on diagnostic nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) among patients with positive vs negative test results for antibodies in an observational descriptive cohort study of clinical laboratory and linked claims data. Design, Setting, and Participants: The study created cohorts from a deidentified data set composed of commercial laboratory tests, medical and pharmacy claims, electronic health records, and hospital chargemaster data. Patients were categorized as antibody-positive or antibody-negative according to their first SARS-CoV-2 antibody test in the database. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were post-index diagnostic NAAT results, with infection defined as a positive diagnostic test post-index, measured in 30-day intervals (0-30, 31-60, 61-90, >90 days). Additional measures included demographic, geographic, and clinical characteristics at the time of the index antibody test, including recorded signs and symptoms or prior evidence of coronavirus 2019 (COVID) diagnoses or positive NAAT results and recorded comorbidities. Results: The cohort included 3 257 478 unique patients with an index antibody test; 56% were female with a median (SD) age of 48 (20) years. Of these, 2 876 773 (88.3%) had a negative index antibody result, and 378 606 (11.6%) had a positive index antibody result. Patients with a negative antibody test result were older than those with a positive result (mean age 48 vs 44 years). Of index-positive patients, 18.4% converted to seronegative over the follow-up period. During the follow-up periods, the ratio (95% CI) of positive NAAT results among individuals who had a positive antibody test at index vs those with a negative antibody test at index was 2.85 (95% CI, 2.73-2.97) at 0 to 30 days, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.6-0.74) at 31 to 60 days, 0.29 (95% CI, 0.24-0.35) at 61 to 90 days, and 0.10 (95% CI, 0.05-0.19) at more than 90 days. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients with positive antibody test results were initially more likely to have positive NAAT results, consistent with prolonged RNA shedding, but became markedly less likely to have positive NAAT results over time, suggesting that seropositivity is associated with protection from infection. The duration of protection is unknown, and protection may wane over time.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 , Disease Susceptibility , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Age Factors , Antibodies, Viral/isolation & purification , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19 Serological Testing/statistics & numerical data , Correlation of Data , Disease Susceptibility/diagnosis , Disease Susceptibility/epidemiology , Disease Susceptibility/immunology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Symptom Assessment/methods , Symptom Assessment/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiology , Virus Shedding/immunology
7.
Immunity ; 53(1): 1-5, 2020 07 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-611679

ABSTRACT

The development, validation, and appropriate application of serological assays to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are essential to determining seroprevalence of this virus in the United States and globally and in guiding government leadership and the private sector on back-to-work policies. An interagency working group of the US Department of Health and Human Services convened a virtual workshop to identify knowledge gaps and key outstanding scientific issues and to develop strategies to fill them. Key outcomes of the workshop included recommendations for (1) advancing serology assays as a tool to better understand SARS-CoV-2 infection and (2) conducting crucial serology field studies to advance an understanding of immunity to SARS-CoV-2, leading to protection and duration of protection, including the correlation between serological test results and risk of reinfection.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Serologic Tests/methods , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL