Deployment of convalescent plasma for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19

Antibody responses to SARS-CoV2 are distinct in children with MIS-C compared to adults with COVID-19

Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 are associated with age. While children are largely spared from severe respiratory disease, they can present with a SARS-CoV-2-associated multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) similar to Kawasaki's disease. Here, we show distinct antibody (Ab) responses in children with MIS-C compared to adults with severe COVID-19 causing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and those who recovered from mild disease. There was a reduced breadth and specificity of anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in MIS-C patients compared to the COVID patient groups; MIS-C predominantly generated IgG Abs specific for the Spike (S) protein but not for the nucleocapsid (N) protein, while both COVID-19 cohorts had anti-S IgG, IgM and IgA Abs, as well as anti-N IgG Abs. Moreover, MIS-C patients had reduced neutralizing activity compared to COVID-19 cohorts, indicating a reduced protective serological response. These results suggest a distinct infection course and immune response in children and adults who develop severe disease, with implications for optimizing treatments based on symptom and age.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 4 June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs.  MAIN RESULTS: This is the first living update of our review. We included 20 studies (1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs, 16 non-controlled NRSIs) with 5443 participants, of whom 5211 received convalescent plasma, and identified a further 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are randomised. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. Overall risk of bias of included studies was high, due to study design, type of participants, and other previous or concurrent treatments. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from four controlled studies (1 RCT (stopped early) with 103 participants, of whom 52 received convalescent plasma; and 3 controlled NRSIs with 236 participants, of whom 55 received convalescent plasma) to assess effectiveness of convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (1 controlled NRSI, 21 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence). Time to death (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma prolongs time to death (RCT: hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.82; controlled NRSI: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical symptoms, assessed by need for respiratory support (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on improvement of clinical symptoms at seven days (RCT: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19), 14 days (RCT: RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.77; controlled NRSI: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.29), and 28 days (RCT: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.81; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life No studies reported this outcome.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from 1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs and 10 non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of adverse events and serious adverse events was variable. The controlled studies reported on adverse events and serious adverse events only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. The duration of follow-up varied. Some, but not all, studies included death as a serious adverse event.  Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (13 studies, 201 participants) The studies did not report the grade of adverse events. Thirteen studies (201 participants) reported on adverse events of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these adverse events were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).  Serious adverse events (14 studies, 5201 participants)  Fourteen studies (5201 participants) reported on serious adverse events. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (5000 participants), which reported only on serious adverse events limited to the first four hours after convalescent plasma transfusion. This study included death as a serious adverse event; they reported 15 deaths, four of which they classified as potentially, probably or definitely related to transfusion. Other serious adverse events reported in all studies were predominantly allergic or respiratory in nature, including anaphylaxis, transfusion-associated dyspnoea, and transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma affects the number of serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. For safety outcomes we also included non-controlled NRSIs. There was limited information regarding adverse events. Of the controlled studies, none reported on this outcome in the control group. There is only very low-certainty evidence for safety of convalescent plasma for COVID-19.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, problems with recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies are conceivable. The early termination of the first RCT investigating convalescent plasma, and the multitude of studies registered in the past months illustrate this. It is therefore necessary to critically assess the design of these registered studies, and well-designed studies should be prioritised. Other considerations for these studies are the need to report outcomes for all study arms in the same way, and the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are RCTs. This is the first living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. These updates may show different results to those reported here.

Convalescent plasma therapy in patients with COVID-19

There are currently no licensed vaccines or therapeutics for COVID-19. Anti-SARS CoV-2 antibody-containing plasmas, obtained from the recovered individuals who had confirmed COVID-19, have been started to be collected using apheresis devices and stored in blood banks in some countries in order to administer to the patients with COVID-19 for reducing the need of intensive care and the mortality rates. Therefore, in this review, we aim to point out some important issues related to convalescent plasma (CP) and its use in COVID-19. CP may be an adjunctive treatment option to the anti-viral therapy. The protective effect of CP may continue for weeks and months. After the assessment of the donor, 200-600 mL plasma can be collected with apheresis devices. The donation interval may vary between countries. Even though limited published studies are not prospective or randomized, until the development of vaccines or therapeutics, CP seems to be a safe and probably effective treatment for critically ill patients with COVID-19. It could also be used for prophylactic purposes but the safety and effectiveness of this approach should be tested in randomized prospective clinical trials.

Sex differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and the potential link to prostate cancer

The recent outbreak of infections and the pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 represent one of the most severe threats to human health in more than a century. Emerging data from the United States and elsewhere suggest that the disease is more severe in men. Knowledge gained, and lessons learned, from studies of the biological interactions and molecular links that may explain the reasons for the greater severity of disease in men, and specifically in the age group at risk for prostate cancer, will lead to better management of COVID-19 in prostate cancer patients. Such information will be indispensable in the current and post-pandemic scenarios.

Safety of Plasma Infusions in Parkinson's Disease

Background

Young plasma infusions have emerged as a potential treatment for neurodegenerative disease, and convalescent plasma therapy has been used safely in the management of viral pandemics. However, the effect of plasma therapy in Parkinson's disease (PD) is unknown.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to determine the safety, tolerability, and feasibility of plasma infusions in people with PD.

Methods

A total of 15 people with clinically established PD, at least 1 cognitive complaint, and on stable therapy received 1 unit of young fresh frozen plasma twice a week for 4 weeks. Assessments and adverse effects were performed/reported on and off therapy at baseline, immediately after, and 4 weeks after the infusions ended. Adverse effects were also assessed during infusions. The primary outcomes were safety, tolerability, and feasibility. Exploratory outcomes included Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III off medication, neuropsychological battery, Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire‐39, inflammatory markers (tumor necrosis factor‐α, interleukin‐6), uric acid, and quantitative kinematics.

Results

Adherence rate was 100% with no serious adverse effects. There was evidence of improvement in phonemic fluency (P = 0.002) and in the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire‐39 stigma subscore (P = 0.013) that were maintained at the delayed evaluation. Elevated baseline tumor necrosis factor‐α levels decreased 4 weeks after the infusions ended.

Conclusions

Young fresh frozen plasma was safe, feasible, and well tolerated in people with PD, without serious adverse effects and with preliminary evidence for improvements in phonemic fluency and stigma. The results of this study warrant further therapeutic investigations in PD and provide safety and feasibility data for plasma therapy in people with PD who may be at higher risk for severe complications of COVID‐19. © 2020 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with eight commercially available immunoassays

Since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 numerous antibody assays have become available, demonstrating different performance characteristics. This study focused on a quantitative correlation between different commercial assays and a neutralization test (NT). Comparative data is needed as a basis for the production of convalescent plasma and potential interpretations COVID-19 immunity. Sera of 100 SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma donors were collected and SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were characterized using three different IgG-ELISAs (EUROIMMUN IgG and NCP-IgG ELISA, Wantai ELISA), two CLIA (Elecsys, LIAISON) and two lateral flow tests (MEDsan IgM/IgG-Rapid-Test, Wantai Rapid Test) and subsequently correlated to neutralization titers. The Wantai ELISA and the Elecsys provide the highest sensitivities in this sample (98 and 95 percent respectively). Titers with the best overall quantitative correlation to the NT titer were obtained with the Euroimmun IgG ELISA assay (Rho=0.759) and the Wantai ELISA assay (Rho=0.729). An infection without fever and negative or weakly positive reactions in the Wantai Rapid test were negative predictive factors for NT titers >1:200 (negative predictive value of 92 % and 92 % respectively, combination of both 100 %). The Wantai ELISA titer could be a suitable substitute for NT. An adequate pooling strategy of plasma units additionally could compensate deviations of individual antibody titers.

Treatment of Severe COVID-19 with Tocilizumab Mitigates Cytokine Storm and Averts Mechanical Ventilation During Acute Respiratory Distress: A Case Report and Literature Review

COVID-19, caused by the novel severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), emerged in Wuhan, China, in 2019 and has resulted in the current pandemic. The disease continues to pose a major therapeutic challenge. Patient mortality is ultimately caused by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Cytokine release syndrome (or "cytokine storm") is likely to be a contributing factor to ARDS in many patients. Because interleukin 6 (IL-6) is known to play a key role in inflammation, IL-6 receptor inhibitors such as tocilizumab may potentially treat COVID-19 by attenuating cytokine release. We present the case of a 48-year-old male with severe COVID-19, on the verge of meeting intubation requirements, who needed progressive oxygen support for respiratory distress. The patient was treated with a non-weight-based dosage of tocilizumab to prevent the onset of a cytokine storm. We chose to administer an IL-6 inhibitor because of the gradually increasing levels of acute phase reactants identified on serial blood draws, as well as his declining respiratory status. The treatment was well-tolerated in conjunction with standard drug therapies for COVID-19 (hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc). The patient subsequently experienced marked improvements in his respiratory symptoms and overall clinical status over the following days. We believe that tocilizumab played a substantial role in his ability to avert clinical decline, particularly the need for mechanical ventilation. Ultimately, the patient was downgraded from the ICU and discharged within days. We highlight the potential of IL-6 inhibitors to prevent the progression of respiratory disease to a point requiring ventilator support. This case underscores the potential importance of early serial measurements of IL-6 and cytokine storm-associated acute phase reactants, such as ferritin, D-dimer, and C-reactive protein, in guiding clinical decision-making in the management of patients with suspected COVID-19. Conclusion: The early, proactive identification of serum acute phase reactants should be implemented in the treatment of COVID-19 in order to screen for a primary contributor to mortality-the cytokine storm. This screening, when followed by aggressive early treatment for cytokine storm, may have optimal therapeutic benefits and obviate the need for mechanical ventilation, thereby decreasing mortality. Additionally, we review current evidence regarding cytokine release syndrome in COVID-19 and the use of IL-6 receptor inhibition as a therapeutic strategy, and examine other reported cases in the literature describing IL-6 antagonist treatment for patients with COVID-19.

A Perspective on Emerging Therapeutic Interventions for COVID-19

Coronaviruses are enveloped positive-sense RNA viruses with an unusual large RNA genome and a unique replication mechanism, which are characterized by club-like spikes that protrude from their surface. An outbreak of a novel coronavirus 2019 infection has posed significant threat to the health and economies in the whole world. This article reviewed the viral replication, pathogenicity, prevention and treatment strategies. With a lack of approved treatment options for this virus, alternative approaches to control the spread of disease is in urgent need. This article also covers some management strategies which may be applied to this virus outbreak. Ongoing clinical studies related to possible treatments for COVID-19, potential vaccines, and alternative medication such as natural compounds are also discussed.

Pathogenesis of COVID-19 from the Perspective of the Damage-Response Framework

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presents the medical community with a significant challenge. COVID-19 is an entirely new disease with disparate clinical manifestations that are difficult to reconcile with a single pathogenic principle. Here, we explain how the flexible paradigm of the "damage-response framework" (DRF) of microbial pathogenesis can organize the varied manifestations of COVID-19 into a synthesis that accounts for differences in susceptibility of vulnerable populations as well as for differing manifestations of COVID-19 disease. By focusing on mechanisms of host damage, particularly immune-mediated damage, the DRF provides a lens to understand COVID-19 pathogenesis and to consider how potential therapies could alter the outcome of this disease.

SARS-CoV-2: Repurposed Drugs and Novel Therapeutic Approaches-Insights into Chemical Structure-Biological Activity and Toxicological Screening

SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) pandemic represents the primary public health concern nowadays, and great efforts are made worldwide for efficient management of this crisis. Considerable scientific progress was recorded regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection in terms of genomic structure, diagnostic tools, viral transmission, mechanism of viral infection, symptomatology, clinical impact, and complications, but these data evolve constantly. Up to date, neither an effective vaccine nor SARS-CoV-2 specific antiviral agents have been approved, but significant advances were enlisted in this direction by investigating repurposed approved drugs (ongoing clinical trials) or developing innovative antiviral drugs (preclinical and clinical studies). This review presents a thorough analysis of repurposed drug admitted for compassionate use from a chemical structure-biological activity perspective highlighting the ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) properties and the toxicophore groups linked to potential adverse effects. A detailed pharmacological description of the novel potential anti-COVID-19 therapeutics was also included. In addition, a comprehensible overview of SARS-CoV-2 infection in terms of general description and structure, mechanism of viral infection, and clinical impact was portrayed.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralising antibodies in blood donors from the Lodi Red Zone in Lombardy, Italy, as at 06 April 2020

We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 RNA and neutralising antibodies in blood donors (BD) residing in the Lodi Red Zone, Italy. Of 390 BDs recruited after 20 February 2020 − when the first COVID-19 case in Lombardy was identified, 91 (23%) aged 19–70 years were antibody positive. Viral RNA was detected in an additional 17 (4.3%) BDs, yielding ca 28% (108/390) with evidence of virus exposure. Five stored samples collected as early as 12 February were seropositive.

Convalescent plasma - Is it useful for treating SARS Co-V2 infection?

The world is challenged with the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Although preventive measures such as social distancing, personal protective equipment and isolation would decrease the spread of the infection, a definitive treatment is still under way. Antivirals, immunisation, convalescent plasma (CP) and many more modalities are under trial, and there has been no definite answer to the management of COVID-19 infection. All patients so far have received the standard and symptomatic care. It is shown that the SARS-CoV 2 is a respiratory pathogen, and 80% of the infected patients would recover from the illness and it is the 20% of the infected patients require hospitalisation and even critical care. CP has been used to treat recent epidemic respiratory infections such as Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) infections with promising results. The CP of a recovered individual contains antibodies which neutralise the virus and decrease the viral replication in the patient. It is a classic adaptive immunotherapy and has been applied in the prevention and treatment of many infectious diseases. CP is plasma taken from a person who has recovered from an infection, which contains neutralising antibodies against the said infection. Giving CP to susceptible individuals or infected patients is a form of passive antibody therapy and in the case of SARS-CoV-2, is expected to provide protection by viral neutralisation and antibody-dependent cytotoxicity and phagocytosis. The adaptive response is to a specific antigen-binding array of molecules that are foreign to the host. The human response to viruses uses both the innate and the adaptive arms in its attempt to rid the host of the invading pathogen. The humoral response is a component of the adaptive immune response that allows for antibodies to bind to foreign invading pathogens, marks the pathogens and their toxins for phagocytosis and recruits further phagocytic cells to the site via the activation of the complement system and eventually prevents the pathogen from infecting target cells. Studies from Wuhan from various institutions during the research on COVID-19 infections during December 2019 have also shown promising results. Till date, randomised controlled studies for the use of CP in SARS-CoV-2 infection are lacking, and many countries have invited institutions to participate in clinical trials. The Indian Council of Medical research and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, Government of India, have allowed the use of CP as an investigational drug under a trial basis. Internationally, agencies such as the USFDA, American Association of Blood Banks, European Blood Safety and British Blood Transfusion Society have also come out with various guidelines for the use of CP in COVID-19 infection. This article will review the current guidelines for the use of CP and compare the various guidelines of different agencies.

SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19: a primer for cardiologists

In the late autumn of 2019, a new potentially lethal human coronavirus designated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in Wuhan, China. The pandemic spread of this zoonotic virus has created a global health emergency and an unprecedented socioeconomic crisis. The severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the illness caused by SARS-CoV‑2, is highly variable. Most patients (~85%) develop no or mild symptoms, while others become seriously ill, some succumbing to disease-related complications. In this review, the SARS-CoV‑2 life cycle, its transmission and the clinical and immunological features of COVID-19 are described. In addition, an overview is presented of the virological assays for detecting ongoing SARS-CoV‑2 infections and the serological tests for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody detection. Also discussed are the different approaches to developing a COVID-19 vaccine and the perspectives of treating COVID-19 with antiviral drugs, immunomodulatory agents and anticoagulants/antithrombotics. Finally, the cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are briefly touched upon. While there is still much to learn about SARS-CoV‑2, the tremendous recent advances in biomedical technology and knowledge and the huge amount of research into COVID-19 raise the hope that a remedy for this disease will soon be found. COVID-19 will nonetheless have a lasting impact on human society.

Managing childhood allergies and immunodeficiencies during respiratory virus epidemics - The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic: A statement from the EAACI-section on pediatrics

While the world is facing an unprecedented pandemic with COVID-19, patients with chronic diseases need special attention and if warranted adaptation of their regular treatment plan. In children, allergy and asthma are among the most prevalent non-communicable chronic diseases, and healthcare providers taking care of these patients need guidance. At the current stage of knowledge, children have less severe symptoms of COVID-19, and severe asthma and immunodeficiency are classified as risk factors. In addition, there is no evidence that currently available asthma and allergy treatments, including antihistamines, corticosteroids, and bronchodilators, increase the risk of severe disease from COVID-19. Most countries affected by COVID-19 have opted for nationwide confinement, which means that communication with the primary clinician is often performed by telemedicine. Optimal disease control of allergic, asthmatic, and immunodeficient children should be sought according to usual treatment guidelines. This statement of the EAACI Section on Pediatrics puts forward six recommendations for the management of childhood allergies and immunodeficiencies based on six underlying facts and existing evidence.

Convalescent Plasma: Therapeutic Hope or Hopeless Strategy in the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

As the world faces the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, extensive efforts have been applied to identify effective therapeutic agents. Convalescent plasma collected from recovered patients has been a therapeutic modality employed for over a hundred years for various infectious pathogens. Specifically, it has been used in the treatment of many viral infections with varying degrees of clinical efficacy. As we consider the use of convalescent plasma in the battle against this new strain of coronavirus, it is prudent to review what is known from past experiences. Accordingly, the aim of this review is to examine in detail studies of convalescent plasma used during previous viral outbreaks and pandemics with particular focus on hemorrhagic fevers, influenza, and other coronaviruses. The concluding sections of this review address the potential use of convalescent plasma during the present-day SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, not only insofar as its clinical benefit but also the steps required to make convalescent plasma treatments readily available for an exponentially growing patient population. By the end, the authors hope to address the extent to which convalescent plasma represents a realistic therapeutic approach, or a distraction from other potentially useful treatments.

Fear of COVID-19 scale: Psychometric characteristics, reliability and validity in the Israeli population

Mental health clinicians worldwide have been expressing concerns regarding the broad psychological effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, only a few studies have thus far evaluated the degree of fear of COVID-19, partially due to the lack of validated measures. In this study we evaluated the psychometric properties of the Hebrew version of the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S), recently developed to assess different aspects of the fear of the pandemic, in a normative population of participants in Israel. Participants (n = 639) were asked to complete the FCV-19S scale, as well as to report anxiety, depression, and stress levels using validated scales. The results a unidimensional factor structure of the FCV-19S which explained 53.71% of the variance. When forcing a two-factor structure model, the analysis revealed two factors pertaining to emotional fear reactions and symptomatic expressions of fear. Gender, sociodemographic status, chronic illness, being in an at-risk group, and having a family member dying of COVID-19 were positively associated with fear of COVID-19. The measure was associated with anxiety, stress and depression. These results suggest that the FCV-19S has good psychometric properties, and can be utilized in studies assessing the effects of the pandemic on the population's mental health.

Two X-linked agammaglobulinemia patients develop pneumonia as COVID-19 manifestation but recover

BACKGROUND

The recent SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, which has recently affected Italy since February 21, constitutes a threat to normal subjects, as the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) can manifest with a broad spectrum of clinical phenotypes ranging from asymptomatic cases to pneumonia or even death. There is evidence that older age and several comorbidities can affect the risk to develop severe pneumonia and possibly the need of mechanic ventilation in subjects infected with SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, we evaluated the outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with inborn errors of immunity (IEI) such as X-linked agammaglobulinemia (XLA).

METHODS

When the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic has reached Italy, we have activated a surveillance protocol of patients with IEI, to perform SARS-CoV-2 search by nasopharyngeal swab in patients presenting with symptoms that could be a manifestation of COVID-19, such as fever, cough, diarrhea, or vomiting.

RESULTS

We describe two patients with X-linked agammaglobulinemia (XLA) aged 34 and 26 years with complete absence of B cells from peripheral blood who developed COVID-19, as diagnosed by SARS-CoV-2 detection by nasopharyngeal swab, while receiving immunoglobulin infusions. Both patients developed interstitial pneumonia characterized by fever, cough, and anorexia and associated with elevation of CRP and ferritin, but have never required oxygen ventilation or intensive care.

CONCLUSION

Our report suggests that XLA patients might present with high risk to develop pneumonia after SARS-CoV-2 infection, but can recover from infection, suggesting that B-cell response might be important, but is not strictly required to overcome the disease. However, there is a need for larger observational studies to extend these conclusions to other patients with similar genetic immune defects.

Weathering the Cytokine Storm in COVID-19: Therapeutic Implications

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) recently emerged in Wuhan, Hubei-China, as responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and then spread rapidly worldwide. While most individuals remain asymptomatic or develop only mild symptoms, approximately 5% develop severe forms of COVID-19 characterized by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and multiple-organ failure (MOF) that usually require intensive-care support and often yield a poor prognosis.

SUMMARY

The pathophysiology of COVID-19 is far from being completely understood, and the lack of effective treatments leads to a sense of urgency to develop new therapeutic strategies based on pathophysiological assumptions. The exaggerated cytokine release in response to viral infection, a condition known as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or cytokine storm, is emerging as the mechanism leading to ARDS and MOF in COVID-19, thus endorsing the hypothesis that properly timed anti-inflammatory therapeutic strategies could improve patients' clinical outcomes and prognosis. Key Messages: The objective of this article is to explore and comment on the potential role of the promising immunomodulatory therapies using pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches to overcome the dysregulated proinflammatory response in COVID-19.

Sex, age, and hospitalization drive antibody responses in a COVID-19 convalescent plasma donor population

Convalescent plasma is currently one of the leading treatments for COVID-19, but there is a paucity of data identifying therapeutic efficacy. A comprehensive analysis of the antibody responses in potential plasma donors and an understanding of the clinical and demographic factors that drive variant antibody responses is needed. Among 126 potential convalescent plasma donors, the humoral immune response was evaluated by a SARS-CoV-2 virus neutralization assay using Vero-E6-TMPRSS2 cells, commercial IgG and IgA ELISA to Spike (S) protein S1 domain (Euroimmun), IgA, IgG and IgM indirect ELISAs to the full-length S or S-receptor binding domain (S-RBD), and an IgG avidity assay. Multiple linear regression and predictive models were utilized to assess the correlations between antibody responses with demographic and clinical characteristics. IgG titers were greater than either IgM or IgA for S1, full length S, and S-RBD in the overall population. Of the 126 plasma samples, 101 (80%) had detectable neutralizing titers. Using neutralization titer as the reference, the sensitivity of the IgG ELISAs ranged between 95-98%, but specificity was only 20-32%. Male sex, older age, and hospitalization with COVID-19 were all consistently associated with increased antibody responses across the serological assays. Neutralizing antibody titers were reduced over time in contrast to overall antibody responses. There was substantial heterogeneity in the antibody response among potential convalescent plasma donors, but sex, age and hospitalization emerged as factors that can be used to identify individuals with a high likelihood of having strong antiviral antibody levels.

International Survey of Trials of Convalescent Plasma to Treat COVID-19 Infection

The collection and clinical use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) as a therapy for COVID-19 infection is under development and early use in many centers worldwide. We conducted an international survey of centers undertaking studies of CCP to provide understanding of the common themes and differences between them. Sixty-four studies in 22 countries were identified from clinical trial registries and personal contacts of the authors. Twenty of the 64 centers (31%) from 12 of 22 countries (55%) responded to the survey. Of the 20 studies, 11 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 9 were case series. Only 4 of the RCTs plan to recruit 400 patients or more, and only 3 RCTs were blinded. The majority of studies will study the effect of CCP on sick patients requiring hospitalization and those requiring critical care, and none is examining the role of CCP in non-infected at-risk individuals. A wide variety of primary and secondary outcomes are being used. The donor eligibility criteria among the studies are very similar, and the use of plasmapheresis for the collection of CCP is almost universal. The planned dose of CCP ranges from as little as 200 mL to well over 1 L, but is 400 to 800 mL or 4 mL/kg or greater in all the RCTs. There is considerable variability in donor antibody testing with no consistency regarding the cut-off for antibody titer for acceptance as CCP or the use of pathogen-inactivation. Our survey provides an understanding of the similarities and differences among the studies of CCP, and that by virtue of their design some studies may be more informative than others.

•

Twenty of the 64 centers (31%) from 12 of 22 countries (55%) responded to a survey about studies of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP); 11 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 9 were case series.

•

The majority of studies are studying the effect of CCP on sick patients requiring hospitalization and those requiring critical care.

•

A wide variety of primary and secondary outcomes are being used.

•

The donor eligibility criteria among the studies are very similar, and the use of plasmapheresis for the collection of CCP is almost universal.

•

Our survey provides an understanding of the similarities and differences among the studies of CCP, and that by virtue of their design some studies may be more informative than others.

COVID-19: progression of disease and intravascular coagulation - present status and future perspectives

The timely and accurate diagnosis of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), remains the cornerstone of efforts to provide appropriated treatment for patients, to limit further spread of the virus and ultimately to eliminate the virus from the human society. We focus this article on (a) developments for improvement of diagnosis of specific SARS-CoV-2 virus, (b) laboratory changes in the immunologic and coagulation system, (c) therapeutic options for anticoagulant treatment of seriously affected patients and (d) on the perspectives through improvement of diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures.

Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and their potential for therapeutic passive immunization

We review aspects of the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of the COVID-19 pandemic. The topics we cover are relevant to immunotherapy with plasma from recovered patients, monoclonal antibodies against the viral S-protein, and soluble forms of the receptor for the virus, angiotensin converting enzyme 2. The development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, an essential public health tool, will also be informed by an understanding of the antibody response in infected patients. Although virus-neutralizing antibodies are likely to protect, antibodies could potentially trigger immunopathogenic events in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients or enhance infection. An awareness of these possibilities may benefit clinicians and the developers of antibody-based therapies and vaccines.

The dynamic treatment of SARS-CoV-2 disease

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged from China in December 2019 and progressed to become a global pandemic. Our understanding of its pathophysiology and potential management was initially extrapolated from previous epidemics of coronaviruses like SARS and MERS. SARS-CoV-2 is asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic in more than 80% of patients and requires no additional management; however, the remaining patients progress to pneumonia and hypoxemia with ranging severity, including a smaller group that requires intensive care unit admission. To date, there are no approved treatments for SARS-CoV-2, and current management is focused on supplemental oxygen and supportive care. The antiviral medication remdesivir recently received emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with severe disease. Multiple clinical trials evaluating different treatment modalities such as antivirals, immunomodulators, convalescent plasma, and monoclonal antibodies, among others, are still ongoing. We believe that patients present with clinical phenotypes that correlate with the spectrum of disease. Each phenotype may benefit from one or multiple interventions. We discuss treatments under evaluation in clinical trials and their potential application based on clinical phenotype presentation.

Potential pharmacological agents for COVID-19

A novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) first emerged in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, has become a global pandemic. Currently, the management of COVID-19 infection is mainly supportive. Several clinical trials worldwide are evaluating several drugs approved for other indications, as well as multiple investigational agents for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Here, we give a brief overview of pharmacological agents and other therapies which are under investigation as treatment options or adjunctive agents for patients infected with COVID-19 and for chemoprophylaxis for the prevention of COVID-19 infection. At the time of writing this commentary, there is no peer-reviewed published evidence from randomized clinical trials of any pharmacological agents improving outcomes in COVID-19 patients. However, it was reported that remdesivir an investigational antiviral agent hastens clinical recovery, but a study is yet to be published in peer-reviewed medical journal.

How did we rapidly implement a convalescent plasma program?

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of convalescent plasma as a possible treatment has been explored. Here we describe our experience as the first U.S. organization creating a COVID-19 convalescent plasma program to support its use through the single-patient emergency investigational new drug, the National Expanded Access Program, and multiple randomized controlled trials. Within weeks, we were able to distribute more than 8000 products, scale up collections to more than 4000 units per week, meet hospital demand, and support randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy of convalescent plasma treatment. This was through strategic planning; redeployment of staff; and active engagement of hospital, community, and public health partners. Our partners helped with donor recruitment, testing, patient advocacy, and patient availability. The program will continue to evolve as we learn more about optimizing the product. Remaining issues to be resolved are antibody titers, dose, and at what stage of disease to transfuse.

Passive Immunity for Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Commentary on Therapeutic Aspects Including Convalescent Plasma

In the ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the novel virus SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) is infecting a naïve population. The innate immunity of the infected patient is unable to mount an effective defense, resulting in a severe illness with substantial morbidity and mortality. As most treatment modalities including antivirals and anti-inflammatory agents are mostly ineffective, an immunological approach is needed. The mechanism of innate immunity to this viral illness is not fully understood. Passive immunity becomes an important avenue for the management of these patients. In this article, the immune responses of COVID-19 patients are reviewed. As SARS-CoV-2 has many characteristics in common with two other viruses, SARS-CoV that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and MERS-CoV (Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus) that causes Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), the experiences learned from the use of passive immunity in treatment can be applied to COVID-19. The immune response includes the appearance of immunoglobulin M followed by immunoglobulin G and neutralizing antibodies. Convalescent plasma obtained from patients recovered from the illness with high titers of neutralizing antibodies was successful in treating many COVID-19 patients. The factors that determine responses as compared with those seen in SARS and MERS are also reviewed. As there are no approved vaccines against all three viruses, it remains a challenge in the ongoing development for an effective vaccine for COVID-19.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 hyperimmune plasma workflow

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the novel coronavirus has become a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Among the various treatment proposals for COVID-19 infection, passive immunotherapy using plasma from recovering patients - "convalescent plasma" (CP)- could be a promising option in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Immune (i.e. "convalescent") plasma refers to plasma that is collected from individuals, following resolution of infection and development of antibodies. Passive antibody administration through transfusion of convalescent plasma may offer the only short-term strategy to confer immediate immunity to susceptible individuals. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the use of plasma therapy is permitted when faced with «serious diseases for which there are no effective pharmacological treatments». Several clinical trials are underway to test the effectiveness of hyperimmune plasma at various stages of SARS-CoV2.The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. regulatory authority, has approved the use of CP for compassionate use in the treatment of patients with a critical COVID-19 infection. Below are the general indications for drawing up clinical protocols for the integral management of "COVID-19-convalescent plasma" for which the validation and approval of the Ethics Committees is still necessary.

Measuring SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody activity using pseudotyped and chimeric viruses

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the ensuing explosive epidemic of COVID19 disease has generated a need for assays to rapidly and conveniently measure the antiviral activity of SARSCoV-2-specific antibodies. Here, we describe a collection of approaches based on SARS-CoV-2 spike-pseudotyped, single-cycle, replication-defective human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV-1) and vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), as well as a replication-competent VSV/SARS-CoV-2 chimeric virus. While each surrogate virus exhibited subtle differences in the sensitivity with which neutralizing activity was detected, the neutralizing activity of both convalescent plasma and human monoclonal antibodies measured using each virus correlated quantitatively with neutralizing activity measured using an authentic SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assay. The assays described herein are adaptable to high throughput and are useful tools in the evaluation of serologic immunity conferred by vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as the potency of convalescent plasma or human monoclonal antibodies.

Rapid Generation of Neutralizing Antibody Responses in COVID-19 Patients

SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, is causing a devastating worldwide pandemic, and there is a pressing need to understand the development, specificity, and neutralizing potency of humoral immune responses during acute infection. We report a cross-sectional study of antibody responses to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and virus neutralization activity in a cohort of 44 hospitalized COVID-19 patients. RBD-specific IgG responses are detectable in all patients 6 days after PCR confirmation. Isotype switching to IgG occurs rapidly, primarily to IgG1 and IgG3. Using a clinical SARS-CoV-2 isolate, neutralizing antibody titers are detectable in all patients by 6 days after PCR confirmation and correlate with RBD-specific binding IgG titers. The RBD-specific binding data were further validated in a clinical setting with 231 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patient samples. These findings have implications for understanding protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2, therapeutic use of immune plasma, and development of much-needed vaccines.

Cross-sectional study of 44 hospitalized COVID-19 patients

RBD-specific IgG responses detectable in all patients 6 days after PCR confirmation

Neutralizing titers are detectable in all patients 6 days after PCR confirmation

RBD-specific IgG titers correlate with the neutralizing potency

SARS-CoV-2 antibody characterization in emergency department, hospitalized and convalescent patients by two semi-quantitative immunoassays

•

Comprehensive evaluation of 2 SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays with excellent agreement.

•

Rigorously validated antibody tests are reliable to detect antibody kinetic change.

•

Three types of seroconversion were observed in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

•

Convalescent sera show a wide range of antibody levels.

•

Current antibody testing is not useful in early screening for COVID-19.

Background

In the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, there is an urgent need for comprehensive performance evaluation and clinical utility assessment of serological assays to understand the immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

Methods

IgM/IgG and total antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were measured by a cyclic enhanced fluorescence assay (CEFA) and a microsphere immunoassay (MIA), respectively. Independent performance evaluation included imprecision, reproducibility, specificity and cross-reactivity (CEFA n = 320, MIA n = 364). Clinical utility was evaluated by both methods in 87 patients at initial emergency department visit, 28 during subsequent hospitalizations (106 serial samples), and 145 convalescent patients. Totally 916 patients and 994 samples were evaluated.

Results

Agreement of CEFA and MIA was 90.4%-94.5% (Kappa: 0.81–0.89) in 302 samples. CEFA and MIA detected SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in 26.2% and 26.3%, respectively, of ED patients. Detection rates increased over time reaching 100% after 21 days post-symptom onset. Longitudinal antibody kinetic changes by CEFA and MIA measurements correlated well and exhibited three types of seroconversion. Convalescent sera showed a wide range of antibody levels.

Conclusion

Rigorously validated CEFA and MIA assays are reliable for detecting antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and show promising clinical utility when evaluating immune response in hospitalized and convalescent patients, but are not useful for early screening at patient’s initial ED visit.

Animal derived antibodies should be considered alongside convalescent human plasma to deliver treatments for COVID-19

Published data on the first 5,000 coronavirus patients to receive plasma shows promise in the United States. However, delivering convalescent plasma therapies in low- and even middle-income countries is both difficult and costly. Here we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of antisera raised in animals that may allow poorer countries to control the devastating effects of COVID-19.

The immune system and COVID-19: Friend or foe?

AIM

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a novel highly contagious infection caused by SARS-CoV-2, which has been became a global public health challenge. The pathogenesis of this virus is not yet clearly understood, but there is evidence of a hyper-inflammatory immune response in critically ill patients, which leads to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and multi-organ failure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature review was performed to identify relevant articles on COVID-19 published up to April 30, 2020. The search resulted in 361 total articles. After reviewing the titles and abstracts for inclusion, some irrelevant papers were excluded. Additional relevant articles were identified from a review of citations referenced.

KEY FINDINGS

SARS-CoV-2, directly and indirectly, affects the immune system and avoids being eliminated in early stages. On the other hand, the secretion of inflammatory cytokines creates critical conditions that lead to multi-organ failure.

SIGNIFICANCE

The immune system which is affected by the virus tries to respond via a cytokine storm and hyperinflammation, which itself leads to further multi-organ damage and even death.

Medical Management of COVID-19: Evidence and Experience

Coronavirus disease 2019 is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and this infectious disease is termed COVID-19 in short. On a global scale, as of June 1, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) published statistics of 6,057,853 infected patients and 371,166 deaths worldwide. Despite reported observational data about the experimental use of certain drugs, there is no conclusively proven curative therapy for COVID-19 as of now; however, remdesivir received emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently for use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. There are several ongoing clinical trials related to the pharmacological choices of therapy for COVID-19 patients; however, drug trials related to observational studies so far have yielded mixed results and therefore have created a sense of confusion among healthcare professionals (HCPs). In this review article, we seek to collate and provide a summary of treatment strategies for COVID-19 patients with a variable degree of illness and discuss pharmacologic and other therapies intended to be used either as experimental medicine/therapy or as part of supportive care in complicated cases of COVID-19.

COVID-19: Immunology and treatment options

The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV2 causes COVID-19, a pandemic threatening millions. As protective immunity does not exist in humans and the virus is capable of escaping innate immune responses, it can proliferate, unhindered, in primarily infected tissues. Subsequent cell death results in the release of virus particles and intracellular components to the extracellular space, which result in immune cell recruitment, the generation of immune complexes and associated damage. Infection of monocytes/macrophages and/or recruitment of uninfected immune cells can result in massive inflammatory responses later in the disease. Uncontrolled production of pro-inflammatory mediators contributes to ARDS and cytokine storm syndrome. Antiviral agents and immune modulating treatments are currently being trialled. Understanding immune evasion strategies of SARS-CoV2 and the resulting delayed massive immune response will result in the identification of biomarkers that predict outcomes as well as phenotype and disease stage specific treatments that will likely include both antiviral and immune modulating agents.

The Emerging Role of Convalescent Plasma in the Treatment of COVID-19

Various agents are currently under evaluation as potential treatments in the fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Plasma from patients that have overcome COVID-19 infection, referred to as convalescent plasma, is a treatment option with considerable background in viral diseases such as Spanish influenza, H1N1, Ebola, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). Although convalescent plasma has historically proven beneficial in the treatment of some viral diseases, its use is still explorative in the context of COVID-19. To date, preliminary evidence from case series is favorable as significant clinical, biochemical improvement and hospital discharge have been reported. A detailed overview of randomized as well non-randomized trials of treatment with convalescent plasma, which have been registered worldwide, is provided in this review. Based on these studies, data from thousands of patients is anticipated in the near future. Convalescent plasma seems to be a safe option, but potential risks such as transfusion-related acute lung injury and antibody-dependent enhancement are discussed. Authorities including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and scientific associations such as the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) and the European Blood Alliance (EBA), have provided guidance into the selection criteria for donors and recipients. A debatable, pivotal issue pertains to the optimal timing of convalescent plasma transfusion. This treatment should be administered as early as possible to maximize efficacy, but at the same time be reserved for severe cases. Emerging risk stratification algorithms integrating clinical and biochemical markers to trace the cases at risk of significant deterioration can prove valuable in this direction.

Biological sex impacts COVID-19 outcomes

The current novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is revealing profound differences between men and women in disease outcomes worldwide. In the United States, there has been inconsistent reporting and analyses of male-female differences in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. We seek to raise awareness about the male-biased severe outcomes from COVID-19, highlighting the mechanistic differences including in the expression and activity of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as well as in antiviral immunity. We also highlight how sex differences in comorbidities, which can be associated with both age and race, impact male-biased outcomes from COVID-19.

A SARS-CoV-2 serological assay to determine the presence of blocking antibodies that compete for human ACE2 binding

As SARS-CoV-2 continues to spread around the world, there is an urgent need for new assay formats to characterize the humoral response to infection. Convalescent serum is being used for treatment and for isolation of patient-derived antibodies. However, currently there is not a simple means to estimate serum bulk neutralizing capability. Here we present an efficient competitive serological assay that can simultaneously determine an individual's seropositivity against the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein and estimate the neutralizing capacity of anti-Spike antibodies to block interaction with the human angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) required for viral entry. In this ELISA-based assay, we present natively-folded viral Spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD)-containing antigens via avidin-biotin interactions. Sera are then supplemented with soluble ACE2-Fc to compete for RBD-binding serum antibodies, and antibody binding quantified. Comparison of signal from untreated serum and ACE2-Fc-treated serum reveals the presence of antibodies that compete with ACE2 for RBD binding, as evidenced by loss of signal with ACE2-Fc treatment. In our test cohort of nine convalescent SARS-CoV-2 patients, we found all patients had developed anti-RBD antibodies targeting the epitope responsible for ACE2 engagement. This assay provides a simple and high-throughput method to screen patient sera for potentially neutralizing anti-Spike antibodies to enable identification of candidate sera for therapeutic use.

COVID-19: Emergence, Spread, Possible Treatments, and Global Burden

The Coronavirus (CoV) is a large family of viruses known to cause illnesses ranging from the common cold to acute respiratory tract infection. The severity of the infection may be visible as pneumonia, acute respiratory syndrome, and even death. Until the outbreak of SARS, this group of viruses was greatly overlooked. However, since the SARS and MERS outbreaks, these viruses have been studied in greater detail, propelling the vaccine research. On December 31, 2019, mysterious cases of pneumonia were detected in the city of Wuhan in China's Hubei Province. On January 7, 2020, the causative agent was identified as a new coronavirus (2019-nCoV), and the disease was later named as COVID-19 by the WHO. The virus spread extensively in the Wuhan region of China and has gained entry to over 210 countries and territories. Though experts suspected that the virus is transmitted from animals to humans, there are mixed reports on the origin of the virus. There are no treatment options available for the virus as such, limited to the use of anti-HIV drugs and/or other antivirals such as Remdesivir and Galidesivir. For the containment of the virus, it is recommended to quarantine the infected and to follow good hygiene practices. The virus has had a significant socio-economic impact globally. Economically, China is likely to experience a greater setback than other countries from the pandemic due to added trade war pressure, which have been discussed in this paper.

Neutralizing antibody and soluble ACE2 inhibition of a replication-competent VSV-SARS-CoV-2 and a clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2

Antibody-based interventions against SARS-CoV-2 could limit morbidity, mortality, and possibly disrupt epidemic transmission. An anticipated correlate of such countermeasures is the level of neutralizing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, yet there is no consensus as to which assay should be used for such measurements. Using an infectious molecular clone of vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) that expresses eGFP as a marker of infection, we replaced the glycoprotein gene (G) with the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 (VSV-eGFP-SARS-CoV-2) and developed a high-throughput imaging-based neutralization assay at biosafety level 2. We also developed a focus reduction neutralization test with a clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2 at biosafety level 3. We compared the neutralizing activities of monoclonal and polyclonal antibody preparations, as well as ACE2-Fc soluble decoy protein in both assays and find an exceptionally high degree of concordance. The two assays will help define correlates of protection for antibody-based countermeasures including therapeutic antibodies, immune γ-globulin or plasma preparations, and vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Replication-competent VSV-eGFP-SARSCoV-2 provides a rapid assay for testing inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 mediated entry that can be performed in 7.5 hours under reduced biosafety containment.

SARS-CoV-2 infection serology: a useful tool to overcome lockdown?

The outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (Covid-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 has spread rapidly, inducing a progressive growth in infected patients number. Social isolation (lockdown) has been assessed to prevent and control virus diffusion, leading to a worldwide financial and political crisis. Currently, SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in nasopharyngeal swab takes place by real-time PCR (RT-qPCR). However, molecular tests can give some false-negative results. In this context, serological assays can be useful to detect IgG/IgM antibodies, to assess the degree of immunization, to trace the contacts, and to support the decision to re-admit people at work. A lot of serological diagnostic kits have been proposed on the market but validation studies have not been published for many of them. The aim of our work was to compare and to evaluate different assays analytical performances (two different immunochromatographic cards, an immunofluorescence chromatographic card, and a chemiluminescence-automated immunoassay) on 43 positive samples with RT-qPCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 40 negative control subjects. Our data display excellent IgG/IgM specificities for all the immunocromatographic card tests (100% IgG and 100% IgM) and for the chemiluminescence-automated assay (100% IgG and 94% IgM); IgG/IgM sensitivities are moderately lower for all methods, probably due to the assay viral antigen's nature and/or to the detection time of nasopharyngeal swab RT-qPCR, with respect to symptoms onset. Given that sensitivities (around 94% and 84% for IgG and IgM, respectively) implicate false-negative cases and given the lack of effective vaccines or treatments, the only currently available procedure to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission is to identify and isolate persons who are contagious. For this reason, we would like to submit a flowchart in which serological tests, integrated with nasopharyngeal swab RT-qPCR, are included to help social and work activities implementation after the pandemic acute phase and to overcome lockdown.

A Phased Approach to Resuming Suspended Allergy/Immunology Clinical Services

In early 2020, the first US and Canadian cases of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were detected. In the ensuing months, there has been rapid spread of the infection. In March 2020, in response to the virus, state/provincial and local governments instituted shelter-in-place orders, and nonessential ambulatory care was significantly curtailed, including allergy/immunology services. With rates of new infections and fatalities potentially reaching a plateau and/or declining, restrictions on provision of routine ambulatory care are lifting, and there is a need to help guide the allergy/immunology clinician on how to reinitiate services. Given the fact that coronavirus disease 2019 will circulate within our communities for months or longer, we present a flexible, algorithmic best-practices planning approach on how to prioritize services, in 4 stratified phases of reopening according to community risk level, as well as highlight key considerations for how to safely do so. The decisions on what services to offer and how fast to proceed are left to the discretion of the individual clinician and practice, operating in accordance with state and local ordinances with respect to the level of nonessential ambulatory care that can be provided. Clear communication with staff and patients before and after all changes should be incorporated into this new paradigm on continual change, given the movement may be forward and even backward through the phases because this is an evolving situation.