Geographically skewed recruitment and COVID-19 seroprevalence estimates: a cross-sectional serosurveillance study and mathematical modelling analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Convenience sampling is an imperfect but important tool for seroprevalence studies. For COVID-19, local geographic variation in cases or vaccination can confound studies that rely on the geographically skewed recruitment inherent to convenience sampling. The objectives of this study were: (1) quantifying how geographically skewed recruitment influences SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimates obtained via convenience sampling and (2) developing new methods that employ Global Positioning System (GPS)-derived foot traffic data to measure and minimise bias and uncertainty due to geographically skewed recruitment. DESIGN: We used data from a local convenience-sampled seroprevalence study to map the geographic distribution of study participants' reported home locations and compared this to the geographic distribution of reported COVID-19 cases across the study catchment area. Using a numerical simulation, we quantified bias and uncertainty in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimates obtained using different geographically skewed recruitment scenarios. We employed GPS-derived foot traffic data to estimate the geographic distribution of participants for different recruitment locations and used this data to identify recruitment locations that minimise bias and uncertainty in resulting seroprevalence estimates. RESULTS: The geographic distribution of participants in convenience-sampled seroprevalence surveys can be strongly skewed towards individuals living near the study recruitment location. Uncertainty in seroprevalence estimates increased when neighbourhoods with higher disease burden or larger populations were undersampled. Failure to account for undersampling or oversampling across neighbourhoods also resulted in biased seroprevalence estimates. GPS-derived foot traffic data correlated with the geographic distribution of serosurveillance study participants. CONCLUSIONS: Local geographic variation in seropositivity is an important concern in SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance studies that rely on geographically skewed recruitment strategies. Using GPS-derived foot traffic data to select recruitment sites and recording participants' home locations can improve study design and interpretation.

Repertoires of SARS-CoV-2 epitopes targeted by antibodies vary according to severity of COVID-19.

Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are central to recovery and immunity from COVID-19. However, the relationship between disease severity and the repertoire of antibodies against specific SARS-CoV-2 epitopes an individual develops following exposure remains incompletely understood. Here, we studied seroprevalence of antibodies to specific SARS-CoV-2 and other betacoronavirus antigens in a well-annotated, community sample of convalescent and never-infected individuals obtained in August 2020. One hundred and twenty-four participants were classified into five groups: previously exposed but without evidence of infection, having no known exposure or evidence of infection, seroconverted without symptoms, previously diagnosed with symptomatic COVID-19, and recovered after hospitalization with COVID-19. Prevalence of IgGs specific to the following antigens was compared between the five groups: recombinant SARS-CoV-2 and betacoronavirus spike and nucleocapsid protein domains, peptides from a tiled array of 22-mers corresponding to the entire spike and nucleocapsid proteins, and peptides corresponding to predicted immunogenic regions from other proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Antibody abundance generally correlated positively with severity of prior illness. A number of specific immunogenic peptides and some that may be associated with milder illness or protection from symptomatic infection were identified. No convincing association was observed between antibodies to Receptor Binding Domain(s) (RBDs) of less pathogenic betacoronaviruses HKU1 or OC43 and COVID-19 severity. However, apparent cross-reaction with SARS-CoV RBD was evident and some predominantly asymptomatic individuals had antibodies to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV RBDs. Findings from this pilot study may inform development of diagnostics, vaccines, and therapeutic antibodies, and provide insight into viral pathogenic mechanisms.

Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in Patients With Cancer: The CANVAX Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: The immunogenicity and reactogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with cancer are poorly understood. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of adults with solid-organ or hematologic cancers to evaluate anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin A/M/G spike antibodies, neutralization, and reactogenicity ≥ 7 days following two doses of mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or one dose of Ad26.COV2.S. We analyzed responses by multivariate regression and included data from 1,638 healthy controls, previously reported, for comparison. RESULTS: Between April and July 2021, we enrolled 1,001 patients; 762 were eligible for analysis (656 had neutralization measured). mRNA-1273 was the most immunogenic (log10 geometric mean concentration [GMC] 2.9, log10 geometric mean neutralization titer [GMT] 2.3), followed by BNT162b2 (GMC 2.4; GMT 1.9) and Ad26.COV2.S (GMC 1.5; GMT 1.4; P < .001). The proportion of low neutralization (< 20% of convalescent titers) among Ad26.COV2.S recipients was 69.9%. Prior COVID-19 infection (in 7.1% of the cohort) was associated with higher responses (P < .001). Antibody titers and neutralization were quantitatively lower in patients with cancer than in comparable healthy controls, regardless of vaccine type (P < .001). Receipt of chemotherapy in the prior year or current steroids were associated with lower antibody levels and immune checkpoint blockade with higher neutralization. Systemic reactogenicity varied by vaccine and correlated with immune responses (P = .002 for concentration, P = .016 for neutralization). In 32 patients who received an additional vaccine dose, side effects were similar to prior doses, and 30 of 32 demonstrated increased antibody titers (GMC 1.05 before additional dose, 3.17 after dose). CONCLUSION: Immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are modestly impaired in patients with cancer. These data suggest utility of antibody testing to identify patients for whom additional vaccine doses may be effective and appropriate, although larger prospective studies are needed.

Comparative Immunogenicity and Effectiveness of mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, and Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 Vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Understanding immunogenicity and effectiveness of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines is critical to guide rational use. METHODS: We compared the immunogenicity of mRNA-1273, BNT-162b2, and Ad26.COV2.S in healthy ambulatory adults. We performed an inverse-variance meta-analysis of population-level effectiveness from public health reports in > 40 million individuals. RESULTS: A single dose of either mRNA vaccine yielded comparable antibody and neutralization titers to convalescent individuals. Ad26.COV2.S yielded lower antibody concentrations and frequently undetectable neutralization titers. Bulk and cytotoxic T-cell responses were higher in mRNA1273 and BNT162b2 than Ad26.COV2.S recipients. Regardless of vaccine, <50% of vaccinees demonstrated CD8+ T-cell responses. Antibody concentrations and neutralization titers increased comparably after the first dose of either vaccine, and further in recipients of a second dose. Prior infection was associated with high antibody concentrations and neutralization even after a single dose and regardless of vaccine. Neutralization of Beta, Gamma, and Delta strains were poorer regardless of vaccine. In meta-analysis, relative to mRNA1273 the effectiveness of BNT162b2 was lower against infection and hospitalization, and Ad26COV2.S was lower against infection, hospitalization, and death. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in the immunogenicity correlates with variable effectiveness of the 3 vaccines deployed in the United States.

Development of a qualitative real-time RT-PCR assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: a guide and case study in setting up an emergency-use, laboratory-developed molecular microbiological assay.

Developing and deploying new diagnostic tests are difficult, but the need to do so in response to a rapidly emerging pandemic such as COVID-19 is crucially important. During a pandemic, laboratories play a key role in helping healthcare providers and public health authorities detect active infection, a task most commonly achieved using nucleic acid-based assays. While the landscape of diagnostics is rapidly evolving, PCR remains the gold-standard of nucleic acid-based diagnostic assays, in part due to its reliability, flexibility and wide deployment. To address a critical local shortage of testing capacity persisting during the COVID-19 outbreak, our hospital set up a molecular-based laboratory developed test (LDT) to accurately and safely diagnose SARS-CoV-2. We describe here the process of developing an emergency-use LDT, in the hope that our experience will be useful to other laboratories in future outbreaks and will help to lower barriers to establishing fast and accurate diagnostic testing in crisis conditions.

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.

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.