Neutralizing antibody response and SARS severity

Lessons From COVID-19 in Children: Key Hypotheses to Guide Preventative and Therapeutic Strategies

The current pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), reveals a peculiar trend of milder disease and lower case fatality in children compared with adults. Consistent epidemiologic evidence of reduced severity of infection in children across different populations and countries suggests there are underlying biological differences between children and adults that mediate differential disease pathogenesis. This presents a unique opportunity to learn about disease-modifying host factors from pediatric populations. Our review summarizes the current knowledge of pediatric clinical disease, role in transmission, risks for severe disease, protective immunity, as well as novel therapies and vaccine trials for children. We then define key hypotheses and areas for future research that can use the pediatric model of disease, transmission, and immunity to develop preventive and therapeutic strategies for people of all age groups.

COVID-19, varying genetic resistance to viral disease and immune tolerance checkpoints

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is a zoonosis like most of the great plagues sculpting human history, from smallpox to pandemic influenza and human immunodeficiency virus. When viruses jump into a new species the outcome of infection ranges from asymptomatic to lethal, historically ascribed to “genetic resistance to viral disease.” People have exploited these differences for good and bad, for developing vaccines from cowpox and horsepox virus, controlling rabbit plagues with myxoma virus and introducing smallpox during colonization of America and Australia. Differences in resistance to viral disease are at the core of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) crisis, yet our understanding of the mechanisms in any interspecies leap falls short of the mark. Here I review how the two key parameters of viral disease are countered by fundamentally different genetic mechanisms for resistance: (1) virus transmission, countered primarily by activation of innate and adaptive immune responses; and (2) pathology, countered primarily by tolerance checkpoints to limit innate and adaptive immune responses. I discuss tolerance thresholds and the role of CD8 T cells to limit pathological immune responses, the problems posed by tolerant superspreaders and the signature coronavirus evasion strategy of eliciting only short‐lived neutralizing antibody responses. Pinpointing and targeting the mechanisms responsible for varying pathology and short‐lived antibody were beyond reach in previous zoonoses, but this time we are armed with genomic technologies and more knowledge of immune checkpoint genes. These known unknowns must now be tackled to solve the current COVID‐19 crisis and the inevitable zoonoses to follow.

Applying Immune Instincts and Maternal Intelligence from Comparative Microbiology to COVID-19

New data specific to COVID-19 are emerging quickly on key issues of immunity and prevention, but past research in coronavirology and for other human pathogens (e.g., Mycoplasma pneumoniae) has been available and of great relevance. Considerable study of endemic human coronaviruses has shown that neutralizing antibody correlates with protection, but effective clinical protection is variable for subsequent virus exposure. Animal coronavirus research has emphasized the importance of local mucosal protection (especially IgA) and systemic responses. Animal model and human post-infection studies for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are largely corroborative. Whether for passive therapeutic strategies or vaccination, these findings provide a template for COVID-19. Many approaches to vaccination have emerged, and there may be more than one vaccine that will be applied, but individualized obstacles and concerns for administration, efficacy, and safety are inevitable. Regardless of safeguards or promises that may be understood from laboratory or vertebrate experiments, observations from large-scale human trials will ultimately prove to shape the medical future. Focus on common mucosal immunity can be underrated, and equally or more, focus on lactogenic immunity may be underestimated. In understanding both passive immunity and protection, the body is already primed to educate us with decisions of what constitutes protection and harm. This review provides key insights that drive hypotheses into how the instinct of immunity and the intelligence of the maternal component of the common mucosal immune system has already guided us and may continue to do so effectively into a bright and safe future.

Is Cross-Reactive Immunity Triggering COVID-19 Immunopathogenesis?

The serological responses to both SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 virus have some unique characteristics that suggest cross-reactive priming by other human coronaviruses (hCoVs). The early kinetics and magnitude of these responses are, in some cases, associated with worse clinical outcomes in SARS and COVID-19. Cross-reactive hCoV antibody responses have been detected in both SARS and COVID-19 patients. There is also evidence that pre-existing T cell immunity to common cold coronaviruses can prime the response to SARS-CoV-2. Studies in non-human primates show that SARS-CoV-1 S-protein vaccine-induced antibodies are associated with acute lung injury in macaques challenged with SARS-CoV-1. Here we discuss the potential of cross-reactive immunity to drive the immunopathogenesis of COVID-19 and its implications for current efforts to develop immune-based therapies and vaccines.

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 19 August 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' 2.0 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. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, mortality (time to event), improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs).

MAIN RESULTS

This is the second living update of our review. We included 19 studies (2 RCTs, 8 controlled NRSIs, 9 non-controlled NRSIs) with 38,160 participants, of whom 36,081 received convalescent plasma. Two completed RCTs are awaiting assessment (published after 19 August 2020). We identified a further 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are randomised (3 reported in a study registry as already being completed, but without results). We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We did not include data from controlled NRSIs in data synthesis because of critical risk of bias. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low, due to study limitations and results including both potential benefits and harms.  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from two RCTs (both stopped early) with 189 participants, of whom 95 received convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.34; 1 RCT, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases mortality (time to event) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may result in little to no difference in improvement of clinical symptoms (i.e. need for respiratory support) at seven days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19; 1 RCT, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may increase improvement of clinical symptoms at up to 15 days (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.11; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence), and at up to 30 days (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43; 2 studies, 188 participants; low-certainty evidence).  No studies reported on quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from two RCTs, eight controlled NRSIs and nine non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of safety data and duration of follow-up was variable. The controlled studies reported on AEs and SAEs only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. Some, but not all, studies included death as a SAE.  The studies did not report the grade of AEs. Fourteen studies (566 participants) reported on AEs of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these AEs were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe AEs (very low-certainty evidence).  17 studies (35,944 participants) assessed SAEs for 20,622 of its participants. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (20,000 participants), which reported on SAEs within the first four hours and within an additional seven days after transfusion. There were 63 deaths, 12 were possibly and one was probably related to transfusion. There were 146 SAEs within four hours and 1136 SAEs within seven days post-transfusion. These were predominantly allergic or respiratory, thrombotic or thromboembolic and cardiac events. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy results in a clinically relevant increased risk of SAEs (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. There was limited information regarding grade 3 and 4 AEs to determine the effect of convalescent plasma therapy on clinically relevant SAEs. In the absence of a control group, we are unable to assess the relative safety of convalescent plasma therapy.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies is problematic. The early termination of the first two RCTs investigating convalescent plasma, and the lack of data from 20 studies that have completed or were due to complete at the time of this update illustrate these challenges. Well-designed studies should be prioritised. Moreover, studies should report outcomes in the same way, and should consider the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are RCTs (three already completed). This is the second living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. Future updates may show different results to those reported here.

Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies

Antibody-based drugs and vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are being expedited through preclinical and clinical development. Data from the study of SARS-CoV and other respiratory viruses suggest that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could exacerbate COVID-19 through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). Previous respiratory syncytial virus and dengue virus vaccine studies revealed human clinical safety risks related to ADE, resulting in failed vaccine trials. Here, we describe key ADE mechanisms and discuss mitigation strategies for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies in development. We also outline recently published data to evaluate the risks and opportunities for antibody-based protection against SARS-CoV-2.

Differences in Antibody Kinetics and Functionality Between Severe and Mild Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infections

We determined and compared the humoral immune response in patients with severe (hospitalized) and mild (nonhospitalized) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Patients with severe disease (n = 38) develop a robust antibody response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), including immunoglobulin G and immunoglobulin A antibodies. The geometric mean 50% virus neutralization titer is 1:240. SARS-CoV-2 infection was found in hospital personnel (n = 24), who developed mild symptoms necessitating leave of absence and self-isolation, but not hospitalization; 75% developed antibodies, but with low/absent virus neutralization (60% with titers <1:20). While severe COVID-19 patients develop a strong antibody response, mild SARS-CoV-2 infections induce a modest antibody response. Long-term monitoring will show whether these responses predict protection against future infections.

A systematic review of antibody mediated immunity to coronaviruses: kinetics, correlates of protection, and association with severity

Many public health responses and modeled scenarios for COVID-19 outbreaks caused by SARS-CoV-2 assume that infection results in an immune response that protects individuals from future infections or illness for some amount of time. The presence or absence of protective immunity due to infection or vaccination (when available) will affect future transmission and illness severity. Here, we review the scientific literature on antibody immunity to coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2 as well as the related SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and endemic human coronaviruses (HCoVs). We reviewed 2,452 abstracts and identified 491 manuscripts relevant to 5 areas of focus: 1) antibody kinetics, 2) correlates of protection, 3) immunopathogenesis, 4) antigenic diversity and cross-reactivity, and 5) population seroprevalence. While further studies of SARS-CoV-2 are necessary to determine immune responses, evidence from other coronaviruses can provide clues and guide future research.

Mitigating Coronavirus Induced Dysfunctional Immunity for At-Risk Populations in COVID-19: Trained Immunity, BCG and "New Old Friends"

The novel, highly contagious coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 spreads rapidly throughout the world, leading to a deadly pandemic of a predominantly respiratory illness called COVID-19. Safe and effective anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are urgently needed. However, emerging immunological observations show hallmarks of significant immunopathological characteristics and dysfunctional immune responses in patients with COVID-19. Combined with existing knowledge about immune responses to other closely related and highly pathogenic coronaviruses, this could forebode significant challenges for vaccine development, including the risk of vaccine failure. Animal data from earlier coronavirus vaccine efforts indicate that elderly people, most at risk from severe COVID-19 disease, could be especially at risk from immunopathologic responses to novel coronavirus vaccines. Bacterial "new old friends" such as Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) or Mycobacterium obuense have the ability to elevate basal systemic levels of type 1 cytokines and immune cells, correlating with increased protection against diverse and unrelated infectious agents, called "trained immunity." Here we describe dysfunctional immune responses induced by coronaviruses, representing potentially difficult to overcome obstacles to safe, effective vaccine development for COVID-19, and outline how trained immunity could help protect high risk populations through immunomodulation with BCG and other "new old friends."

Can data from paediatric cohorts solve the COVID-19 puzzle?

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, is significantly more severe in adults than in children. The biological reasons for this difference remain to be elucidated. We have compared the most recent virological and immunological data related to COVID-19 between adults and children and contrasted this with earlier data from severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) caused by the related SARS-CoV-1 in 2003. Based on these available data, a number of hypotheses are proposed to explain the difference in COVID-19 clinical outcomes between adults and children. NF-kB may be a key factor that could explain the severe clinical manifestations of COVID-19 in adults as well as rare complications associated with paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS) in paediatric COVID-19 patients.

Immunoregulation with mTOR inhibitors to prevent COVID-19 severity: A novel intervention strategy beyond vaccines and specific antiviral medicines

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a major global public health concern. The mortality rate for critically ill patients is up to 60%, and, thus, reducing the disease severity and case mortality is a top priority. Currently, cytokine storms are considered as the major cause of critical illness and death due to COVID-19. After a systematical review of the literature, we propose that cross-reactive antibodies associated with antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) may actually be the cause of cytokine storms. It would be more difficult to develop vaccines for highly pathogenic human coronaviruses (CoVs) if ADE characteristics are taken into consideration. Therefore, it is urgent to find an effective way to prevent the occurrence of severe illness as severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV-2 specific drugs or vaccines are still in development. If the activation of memory B cells can be selectively inhibited in high-risk patients at an early stage of COVID-19 to reduce the production of cross-reactive antibodies against the virus, we speculate that ADE can be circumvented and severe symptoms can be prevented. The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors satisfy such needs and it is recommended to conduct clinical trials for mTOR inhibitors in preventing the severity of COVID-19.

Clinical, molecular, and epidemiological characterization of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), a comprehensive literature review

Coronaviruses are an extensive family of viruses that can cause disease in both animals and humans. The current classification of coronaviruses recognizes 39 species in 27 subgenera that belong to the family Coronaviridae. From those, at least 7 coronaviruses are known to cause respiratory infections in humans. Four of these viruses can cause common cold-like symptoms. Those that infect animals can evolve and become infectious to humans. Three recent examples of these viral jumps include SARS CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS CoV-2 virus. They are responsible for causing severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and the most recently discovered coronavirus disease during 2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19, a respiratory disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 11 March 2020. The rapid spread of the disease has taken the scientific and medical community by surprise. Latest figures from 20 May 2020 show more than 5 million people had been infected with the virus, causing more than 330,000 deaths in over 210 countries worldwide. The large amount of information received daily relating to COVID-19 is so abundant and dynamic that medical staff, health authorities, academics and the media are not able to keep up with this new pandemic. In order to offer a clear insight of the extensive literature available, we have conducted a comprehensive literature review of the SARS CoV-2 Virus and the Coronavirus Diseases 2019 (COVID-19).

Tracking Changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike: Evidence that D614G Increases Infectivity of the COVID-19 Virus

A SARS-CoV-2 variant carrying the Spike protein amino acid change D614G has become the most prevalent form in the global pandemic. Dynamic tracking of variant frequencies revealed a recurrent pattern of G614 increase at multiple geographic levels: national, regional, and municipal. The shift occurred even in local epidemics where the original D614 form was well established prior to introduction of the G614 variant. The consistency of this pattern was highly statistically significant, suggesting that the G614 variant may have a fitness advantage. We found that the G614 variant grows to a higher titer as pseudotyped virions. In infected individuals, G614 is associated with lower RT-PCR cycle thresholds, suggestive of higher upper respiratory tract viral loads, but not with increased disease severity. These findings illuminate changes important for a mechanistic understanding of the virus and support continuing surveillance of Spike mutations to aid with development of immunological interventions.

Tracking Changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike: Evidence that D614G Increases Infectivity of the COVID-19 Virus

A SARS-CoV-2 variant carrying the Spike protein amino acid change D614G has become the most prevalent form in the global pandemic. Dynamic tracking of variant frequencies revealed a recurrent pattern of G614 increase at multiple geographic levels: national, regional, and municipal. The shift occurred even in local epidemics where the original D614 form was well established prior to introduction of the G614 variant. The consistency of this pattern was highly statistically significant, suggesting that the G614 variant may have a fitness advantage. We found that the G614 variant grows to a higher titer as pseudotyped virions. In infected individuals, G614 is associated with lower RT-PCR cycle thresholds, suggestive of higher upper respiratory tract viral loads, but not with increased disease severity. These findings illuminate changes important for a mechanistic understanding of the virus and support continuing surveillance of Spike mutations to aid with development of immunological interventions.

Tracking Changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike: Evidence that D614G Increases Infectivity of the COVID-19 Virus

A SARS-CoV-2 variant carrying the Spike protein amino acid change D614G has become the most prevalent form in the global pandemic. Dynamic tracking of variant frequencies revealed a recurrent pattern of G614 increase at multiple geographic levels: national, regional, and municipal. The shift occurred even in local epidemics where the original D614 form was well established prior to introduction of the G614 variant. The consistency of this pattern was highly statistically significant, suggesting that the G614 variant may have a fitness advantage. We found that the G614 variant grows to a higher titer as pseudotyped virions. In infected individuals, G614 is associated with lower RT-PCR cycle thresholds, suggestive of higher upper respiratory tract viral loads, but not with increased disease severity. These findings illuminate changes important for a mechanistic understanding of the virus and support continuing surveillance of Spike mutations to aid with development of immunological interventions.

The 2020 Pandemic: Current SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Development

Coronaviruses are enveloped viruses with a positive-sense single-stranded RNA genome infecting animals and humans. Coronaviruses have been described more than 70 years ago and contain many species. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) are lethal species caused by human coronaviruses (HCoVs). Currently, a novel strain of HCoVs, named Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). SARS-CoV-2 was first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, the capital city of the Hubei province of China, and has since spread worldwide causing an outbreak in more than 200 countries. The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak was declared a pandemic on March 11th, 2020 and a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) in late January 2020 by the World Health Organization (WHO). SARS-CoV-2 infects the respiratory tract causing flu-like symptoms and, in some, may cause severe illness like pneumonia and multi-organ failure leading to death. Today, Covid-19 cases almost reaching 9 million, with more than 450 thousand deaths. There is an urgent demand for developing a vaccine since no effective therapies or vaccines have been approved to this day to prevent or minimize the spread of the infection. In this review, we summarized the furthest vaccines in the clinical pipeline.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, original antigenic sin, and antibody-dependent enhancement: ménage à trois

BACKGROUND

Shortly after its emergence in December 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared as a pandemic by the World Health Organization. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is the seventh member of the Coronaviridae family of viruses that causes disease in humans.

THE PROBLEM

Despite the established role of molecular diagnostics, COVID-19 serodiagnosis remains a poorly discovered and enigmatic area. Although there are numerous commercial serological products available globally, there is a severe paucity of high-quality peer-reviewed literature on their true performance characteristics. That being said, publications including in-house developed serological tests started to shed light on the kinetics of the humoral response.

SUMMARY

In spite of intense focus of assessing the performance characteristics of the commercially-available kits, the main issue remains rather invisible, that is, lack of solid science behind COVID-19 serology its clinical usefulness thereof. This short review summarizes the key points as to why COVID-19 is not jest ready to fly.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite having been mentioned as a testing option, COVID-19 serology has significant shortcomings that needs discussing. This short review is meant to shed light on one of those aspects.

Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection Impairs Dendritic Cell and T Cell Responses

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in millions of infections, yet the role of host immune responses in early COVID-19 pathogenesis remains unclear. By investigating 17 acute and 24 convalescent patients, we found that acute SARS-CoV-2 infection resulted in broad immune cell reduction including T, natural killer, monocyte, and dendritic cells (DCs). DCs were significantly reduced with functional impairment, and ratios of conventional DCs to plasmacytoid DCs were increased among acute severe patients. Besides lymphocytopenia, although neutralizing antibodies were rapidly and abundantly generated in patients, there were delayed receptor binding domain (RBD)- and nucleocapsid protein (NP)-specific T cell responses during the first 3 weeks after symptoms onset. Moreover, acute RBD- and NP-specific T cell responses included relatively more CD4 T cells than CD8 T cells. Our findings provided evidence that impaired DCs, together with timely inverted strong antibody but weak CD8 T cell responses, could contribute to acute COVID-19 pathogenesis and have implications for vaccine development.

High neutralizing antibody titer in intensive care unit patients with COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a wide spectrum of disease severity from mild upper respiratory symptoms to respiratory failure. The role of neutralizing antibody (NAb) response in disease progression remains elusive. This study determined the seroprevalence of 733 non-COVID-19 individuals from April 2018 to February 2020 in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and compared the neutralizing antibody (NAb) responses of eight COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with those of 42 patients not admitted to the ICU. We found that NAb against SARS-CoV-2 was not detectable in any of the anonymous serum specimens from the 733 non-COVID-19 individuals. The peak serum geometric mean NAb titer was significantly higher among the eight ICU patients than the 42 non-ICU patients (7280 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1468-36099]) vs (671 [95% CI, 368-1223]). Furthermore, NAb titer increased significantly at earlier infection stages among ICU patients than among non-ICU patients. The median number of days to reach the peak Nab titers after symptoms onset was shorter among the ICU patients (17.6) than that of the non-ICU patients (20.1). Multivariate analysis showed that oxygen requirement and fever during admission were the only clinical factors independently associated with higher NAb titers. Our data suggested that SARS-CoV-2 was unlikely to have silently spread before the COVID-19 emergence in Hong Kong. ICU patients had an accelerated and augmented NAb response compared to non-ICU patients, which was associated with disease severity. Further studies are required to understand the relationship between high NAb response and disease severity.

Mechanistic inferences from clinical reports of SARS-CoV-2

SARS-CoV-2 was identified as the causative pathogen in an outbreak of viral pneumonia cases originating in Wuhan, China, with an ensuing rapid global spread that led it to be declared a pandemic by the WHO on March 11, 2020. Given the threat to public health posed by sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the literature surrounding patient presentation in severe and non-severe cases, transmission rates and routes, management strategies, and initial clinical trial results have become available at an unprecedented pace. In this review we collate current clinical and immunologic reports, comparing these to reports of previous coronaviruses to identify mechanisms driving progression to severe disease in some patients. In brief, we propose a model wherein dysregulated type I interferon signalling leads to aberrant recruitment and accumulation of innate immune lineages in the lung, impairing establishment of productive adaptive responses, and permitting a pathologic pro-inflammatory state. Finally, we extend these findings to suggest possible treatment options that may merit investigation in randomized clinical trials.

Role of Monocytes/Macrophages in Covid-19 Pathogenesis: Implications for Therapy

Emerging studies from SARS-CoV-2-infected patients indicate a preponderant role of monocytes/macrophages in the pathogenesis of this viral infection, in a similar way to that previously observed in other coronavirus outbreaks (SARS and MERS). The clinical presentation of severe patients resembles viral-associated hemophagocytic syndrome, a rare condition previously seen during lethal influenza pandemics and during previous SARS and MERS coronavirus outbreaks. SARS-CoV-2 infection triggers an over-exuberant inflammatory response due to the development of a cytokine storm and the depletion of the adaptative immune compartment, which may prelude sepsis in many cases. The present review summarizes past evidence on the role of monocytes/macrophages in previous coronavirus outbreaks and the emerging knowledge on their role in COVID-19 pathogenesis. Treatment strategies incorporating the blockade of migration and differentiation of monocyte-macrophage, such as granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor inhibitors, might enhance the promising results seen so far with selective cytokine blockade.

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.

Highly pathogenic coronaviruses: thrusting vaccine development in the spotlight

Coronaviruses (CoVs) are a large family of viruses that cause illness ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disease (COVID-19) has caused major public health crises. There have been more than 4,400,000 reported cases of COVID-2019 and more than 300,000 reported deaths to date (16/05/2020). SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 have attracted widespread global attention due to their high infectivity and pathogenicity. To date, there is no specific treatment proven effective against these viral infectious diseases. Vaccination is considered one of the most effective strategies to prevent viral infections. Therefore, the development of effective vaccines against highly pathogenic coronaviruses is essential. In this review, we will briefly describe coronavirus vaccine design targets, summarize recent advances in the development of coronavirus vaccines, and highlight current adjuvants for improving the efficacy of coronavirus vaccines.

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.

Immunology of COVID-19: Current State of the Science

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has affected millions of people worldwide, igniting an unprecedented effort from the scientific community to understand the biological underpinning of COVID19 pathophysiology. In this Review, we summarize the current state of knowledge of innate and adaptive immune responses elicited by SARS-CoV-2 infection and the immunological pathways that likely contribute to disease severity and death. We also discuss the rationale and clinical outcome of current therapeutic strategies as well as prospective clinical trials to prevent or treat SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Immune Response, Inflammation, and the Clinical Spectrum of COVID-19

The current COVID-19 pandemic began in December 2019 in Wuhan (China) and rapidly extended to become a global sanitary and economic emergency. Its etiological agent is the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 presents a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations, which ranges from an asymptomatic infection to a severe pneumonia accompanied by multisystemic failure that can lead to a patient's death. The immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is known to involve all the components of the immune system that together appear responsible for viral elimination and recovery from the infection. Nonetheless, such immune responses are implicated in the disease's progression to a more severe and lethal process. This review describes the general aspects of both COVID-19 and its etiological agent SARS-CoV-2, stressing the similarities with other severe coronavirus infections, such as SARS and MERS, but more importantly, pointing toward the evidence supporting the hypothesis that the clinical spectrum of COVID-19 is a consequence of the corresponding variable spectrum of the immune responses to the virus. The critical point where progression of the disease ensues appears to center on loss of the immune regulation between protective and altered responses due to exacerbation of the inflammatory components. Finally, it appears possible to delineate certain major challenges deserving of exhaustive investigation to further understand COVID-19 immunopathogenesis, thus helping to design more effective diagnostic, therapeutic, and prophylactic strategies.

Antibody-dependent enhancement and COVID-19: Moving toward acquittal

•

Immunoglobulins represent an effective therapeutic option for the treatment of COVID-19.

•

Experimental findings of ADE with related coronaviruses provoked theoretical concerns of enhancing antibodies with COVID-19.

•

Emerging experimental and clinical data alleviate concerns and indorse the safety of antibody-based therapies for COVID-19.

The trinity of COVID-19: immunity, inflammation and intervention

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Alongside investigations into the virology of SARS-CoV-2, understanding the fundamental physiological and immunological processes underlying the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 is vital for the identification and rational design of effective therapies. Here, we provide an overview of the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We describe the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with the immune system and the subsequent contribution of dysfunctional immune responses to disease progression. From nascent reports describing SARS-CoV-2, we make inferences on the basis of the parallel pathophysiological and immunological features of the other human coronaviruses targeting the lower respiratory tract - severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Finally, we highlight the implications of these approaches for potential therapeutic interventions that target viral infection and/or immunoregulation.

The trinity of COVID-19: immunity, inflammation and intervention

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Alongside investigations into the virology of SARS-CoV-2, understanding the fundamental physiological and immunological processes underlying the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 is vital for the identification and rational design of effective therapies. Here, we provide an overview of the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We describe the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with the immune system and the subsequent contribution of dysfunctional immune responses to disease progression. From nascent reports describing SARS-CoV-2, we make inferences on the basis of the parallel pathophysiological and immunological features of the other human coronaviruses targeting the lower respiratory tract - severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Finally, we highlight the implications of these approaches for potential therapeutic interventions that target viral infection and/or immunoregulation.

Development and validation of IMMUNO-COV™: a high-throughput clinical assay for detecting antibodies that neutralize SARS-CoV-2

We here describe the development and validation of IMMUNO-COV™, a high-throughput clinical test to quantitatively measure SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies, the specific subset of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that block viral infection. The test measures the capacity of serum or purified antibodies to neutralize a recombinant Vesicular Stomatitis Virus (VSV) encoding the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. This recombinant virus (VSV-SARS-CoV-2-S-Δ19CT) induces fusion in Vero cell monolayers, which is detected as luciferase signal using a dual split protein (DSP) reporter system. VSV-SARS-CoV-2-S-Δ19CT infection was blocked by monoclonal α-SARS-CoV-2-spike antibodies and by plasma or serum from SARS-CoV-2 convalescing individuals. The assay exhibited 100% specificity in validation tests, and across all tests zero false positives were detected. In blinded analyses of 230 serum samples, only two unexpected results were observed based on available clinical data. We observed a perfect correlation between results from our assay and 80 samples that were also assayed using a commercially available ELISA. To quantify the magnitude of the anti-viral response, we generated a calibration curve by adding stepped concentrations of α-SARS-CoV-2-spike monoclonal antibody to pooled SARS-CoV-2 seronegative serum. Using the calibration curve and a single optimal 1:100 serum test dilution, we reliably measured neutralizing antibody levels in each test sample. Virus neutralization units (VNUs) calculated from the assay correlated closely (p < 0.0001) with PRNT _EC50 values determined by plaque reduction neutralization test against a clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2. Taken together, these results demonstrate that the IMMUNO-COV™ assay accurately quantitates SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies in human sera and therefore is a potentially valuable addition to the currently available serological tests. The assay can provide vital information for comparing immune responses to the various SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that are currently in development, or for evaluating donor eligibility in convalescent plasma therapy studies.

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

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with respiratory virus diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as a 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 assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

The protocol was pre-published with the Center for Open Science and can be accessed here: osf.io/dwf53  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 trials registries to identify ongoing studies and results of completed studies on 23 April 2020 for case-series, cohort, prospectively planned, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology and performed all steps regarding study selection in duplicate by two independent review authors (in contrast to the recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group). We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of 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 immunoglobulins.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group regarding data extraction and assessment. To assess bias in included studies, we used the assessment criteria tool for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.  MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (seven case-series, one prospectively planned, single-arm intervention study) with 32 participants, and identified a further 48 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma (47 studies) or hyperimmune immunoglobulin (one study), of which 22 are randomised. Overall risk of bias of the eight included studies was high, due to: study design; small number of participants; poor reporting within studies; and varied type of participants with different severities of disease, comorbidities, and types of previous or concurrent treatments, including antivirals, antifungals or antibiotics, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine and respiratory support. We rated all outcomes as very low certainty, and we were unable to summarise numerical data in any meaningful way. As we identified case-series studies only, we reported results narratively. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 The following reported outcomes could all be related to the underlying natural history of the disease or other concomitant treatment, rather than convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge All studies reported mortality. All participants were alive at the end of the reporting period, but not all participants had been discharged from hospital by the end of the study (15 participants discharged, 6 still hospitalised, 11 unclear). Follow-up ranged from 3 days to 37 days post-transfusion. We do not know whether convalescent plasma therapy affects mortality (very low-certainty evidence).  Improvement of clinical symptoms (assessed by respiratory support) Six studies, including 28 participants, reported the level of respiratory support required; most participants required respiratory support at baseline. All studies reported improvement in clinical symptoms in at least some participants. We do not know whether convalescent plasma improves clinical symptoms (very low-certainty evidence). Time to discharge from hospital Six studies reported time to discharge from hospital for at least some participants, which ranged from four to 35 days after convalescent plasma therapy.  Admission on the intensive care unit (ICU) Six studies included patients who were critically ill. At final follow-up the majority of these patients were no longer on the ICU or no longer required mechanical ventilation. Length of stay on the ICU Only one study (1 participant) reported length of stay on the ICU. The individual was discharged from the ICU 11 days after plasma transfusion. Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 Grade 3 or 4 adverse events  The studies did not report the grade of adverse events after convalescent plasma transfusion. Two studies reported data relating to participants who had experienced adverse events, that were presumably grade 3 or 4. One case study reported a participant who had moderate fever (38.9 °C). Another study (3 participants) reported a case of severe anaphylactic shock. Four studies reported the absence of moderate or severe adverse events (19 participants). 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 One study (3 participants) reported one serious adverse event. As described above, this individual had severe anaphylactic shock after receiving convalescent plasma. Six studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified eight studies (seven case-series and one prospectively planned single-arm intervention study) with a total of 32 participants (range 1 to 10). Most studies assessed the risks of the intervention; reporting two adverse events (potentially grade 3 or 4), one of which was a serious adverse event. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is effective for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19 as studies reported results inconsistently, making it difficult to compare results and to draw conclusions. We identified very low-certainty evidence on the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma therapy for people with COVID-19; all studies were at high risk of bias and reporting quality was low. No RCTs or controlled non-randomised studies evaluating benefits and harms of convalescent plasma have been completed. There are 47 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, of which 22 are RCTs, and one trial evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We will update this review as a living systematic review, based on monthly searches in the above mentioned databases and registries. These updates are likely to show different results to those reported here.

Highlight of Immune Pathogenic Response and Hematopathologic Effect in SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-Cov-2 Infection

A sudden outbreak of COVID-19 caused by a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, in Wuhan, China in December 2019 quickly grew into a global pandemic, putting at risk not only the global healthcare system, but also the world economy. As the disease continues to spread rapidly, the development of prophylactic and therapeutic approaches is urgently required. Although some progress has been made in understanding the viral structure and invasion mechanism of coronaviruses that may cause severe cases of the syndrome, due to the limited understanding of the immune effects caused by SARS-CoV-2, it is difficult for us to prevent patients from developing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and pulmonary fibrosis (PF), the major complications of coronavirus infection. Therefore, any potential treatments should focus not only on direct killing of coronaviruses and prevention strategies by vaccine development, but also on keeping in check the acute immune/inflammatory responses, resulting in ARDS and PF. In addition, potential treatments currently under clinical trials focusing on killing coronaviruses or on developing vaccines preventing coronavirus infection largely ignore the host immune response. However, taking care of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with ARDS and PF is considered to be the major difficulty. Therefore, further understanding of the host immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is extremely important for clinical resolution and saving medication cost. In addition to a breif overview of the structure, infection mechanism, and possible therapeutic approaches, we summarized and compared the hematopathologic effect and immune responses to SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2. We also discussed the indirect immune response caused by SARS and direct infection, replication, and destroying of immune cells by MERS-CoV. The molecular mechanisms of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infection-induced lymphopenia or cytokine storm may provide some hint toward fight against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus. This may provide guidance over using immune therapy as a combined treatment to prevent patients developing severe respiratory syndrome and largely reduce complications.

Molecular basis of COVID-19 relationships in different species: a one health perspective

Outside the Hubei province, China, the mild form of infection and the progressive recover of the COVID-19 patients suggest the intervention of "unconventional" biological mechanisms worthy of attention. Based on the high-homology between the Spike protein epitopes of taxonomically-related coronaviruses, we hypothesized that past contact with infected dogs shield humans against the circulating SARS-CoV-2. Elseways, the recurrent virus exposure over a short time-lapse might result in the Antibody Dependent Enhancement, triggering the violent immune reaction responsible for the severe clinical outcomes observed in the Hubei province. Nevertheless, further experimental studies are desired for a confidential evaluation of the postulated hypotheses.

Impact of immune enhancement on Covid-19 polyclonal hyperimmune globulin therapy and vaccine development

The pandemic spread of a novel coronavirus - SARS coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) as a cause of acute respiratory illness, named Covid-19, is placing the healthcare systems of many countries under unprecedented stress. Global economies are also spiraling towards a recession in fear of this new life-threatening disease. Vaccines that prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and therapeutics that reduces the risk of severe Covid-19 are thus urgently needed. A rapid method to derive antiviral treatment for Covid-19 is the use of convalescent plasma derived hyperimmune globulin. However, both hyperimmune globulin and vaccine development face a common hurdle - the risk of antibody-mediated disease enhancement. The goal of this review is to examine the body of evidence supporting the hypothesis of immune enhancement that could be pertinent to Covid-19. We also discuss how this risk could be mitigated so that both hyperimmune globulin and vaccines could be rapidly translated to overcome the current global health crisis.

A systematic review of antibody mediated immunity to coronaviruses: antibody kinetics, correlates of protection, and association of antibody responses with severity of disease

The duration and nature of immunity generated in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection is unknown. Many public health responses and modeled scenarios for COVID-19 outbreaks caused by SARSCoV-2 assume that infection results in an immune response that protects individuals from future infections or illness for some amount of time. The timescale of protection is a critical determinant of the future impact of the pathogen. The presence or absence of protective immunity due to infection or vaccination (when available) will affect future transmission and illness severity. The dynamics of immunity and nature of protection are relevant to discussions surrounding therapeutic use of convalescent sera as well as efforts to identify individuals with protective immunity. Here, we review the scientific literature on antibody immunity to coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2 as well as the related SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and human endemic coronaviruses (HCoVs). We reviewed 1281 abstracts and identified 322 manuscripts relevant to 5 areas of focus: 1) antibody kinetics, 2) correlates of protection, 3) immunopathogenesis, 4) antigenic diversity and cross-reactivity, and 5) population seroprevalence. While studies of SARS-CoV-2 are necessary to determine immune responses to it, evidence from other coronaviruses can provide clues and guide future research.

The potential for antibody-dependent enhancement of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Translational implications for vaccine development

There is an urgent need for vaccines to the 2019 coronavirus (COVID19; SARS-CoV-2). Vaccine development may not be straightforward, due to antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). Antibodies against viral surface proteins can, in some cases, increase infection severity by ADE. This phenomenon occurs in SARS-CoV-1, MERS, HIV, Zika, and dengue virus infection and vaccination. Lack of high-affinity anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG in children may explain the decreased severity of infection in these groups. Here, we discuss the evidence for ADE in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection and how to address this potential translational barrier to vaccine development, convalescent plasma, and targeted monoclonal antibody therapies.

Is COVID-19 receiving ADE from other coronaviruses?

One of the most perplexing questions regarding the current COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic is the discrepancy between the severity of cases observed in the Hubei province of China and those occurring elsewhere in the world. One possible answer is antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) of SARS-CoV-2 due to prior exposure to other coronaviruses. ADE modulates the immune response and can elicit sustained inflammation, lymphopenia, and/or cytokine storm, one or all of which have been documented in severe cases and deaths. ADE also requires prior exposure to similar antigenic epitopes, presumably circulating in local viruses, making it a possible explanation for the observed geographic limitation of severe cases and deaths.

Viral-Induced Enhanced Disease Illness

Understanding immune responses to viral infections is crucial to progress in the quest for effective infection prevention and control. The host immunity involves various mechanisms to combat viral infections. Under certain circumstances, a viral infection or vaccination may result in a subverted immune system, which may lead to an exacerbated illness. Clinical evidence of enhanced illness by preexisting antibodies from vaccination, infection or maternal passive immunity is available for several viruses and is presumptively proposed for other viruses. Multiple mechanisms have been proposed to explain this phenomenon. It has been confirmed that certain infection- and/or vaccine-induced immunity could exacerbate viral infectivity in Fc receptor- or complement bearing cells- mediated mechanisms. Considering that antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) is a major obstacle in vaccine development, there are continues efforts to understand the underlying mechanisms through identification of the epitopes and antibodies responsible for disease enhancement or protection. This review discusses the recent findings on virally induced ADE, and highlights the potential mechanisms leading to this condition.

High fatality rates and associated factors in two hospital outbreaks of MERS in Daejeon, the Republic of Korea

OBJECTIVES

To explore the epidemiological and clinical factors predictive of the case fatality rate (CFR) of Middle East respiratory syndrome-coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection in an outbreak in Daejeon, the Republic of Korea.

METHODS

We reviewed the outbreak investigation reports and medical records of 1 index case and 25 additional MERS cases in hospitals A (14 cases) and B (11 cases), and conducted an in-depth interview with the index case.

RESULTS

The CFR in hospital B was higher than that in hospital A (63.6% vs. 28.6%, respectively). Higher MERS-CoV exposure conditions were also found in hospital B, including aggravated pneumonia in the index case and nebulizer use in a six-bed admission room. The host factors associated with high CFR were pre-existing pneumonia, smoking history, an incubation period of less than 5 days, leukocytosis, abnormal renal function at diagnosis, and respiratory symptoms such as sputum and dyspnea.

CONCLUSIONS

The conditions surrounding MERS-CoV exposure and the underlying poor pulmonary function due to a smoking history or pre-existing pneumonia may explain the high CFR in hospital B. The clinical features described above may enable prediction of the prognosis of MERS cases.

Association between Severity of MERS-CoV Infection and Incubation Period

We analyzed data for 170 patients in South Korea who had laboratory-confirmed infection with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. A longer incubation period was associated with a reduction in the risk for death (adjusted odds ratio/1-day increase in incubation period 0.83, 95% credibility interval 0.68–1.03).

Fc receptors in antibody-dependent enhancement of viral infections

Sensitization of the humoral immune response to invading viruses and production of antiviral antibodies forms part of the host antiviral repertoire. Paradoxically, for a number of viral pathogens, under certain conditions, antibodies provide an attractive means of enhanced virus entry and replication in a number of cell types. Known as antibody‐dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection, the phenomenon occurs when virus‐antibody immunocomplexes interact with cells bearing complement or Fc receptors, promoting internalization of the virus and increasing infection. Frequently associated with exacerbation of viral disease, ADE of infection presents a major obstacle to the prevention of viral disease by vaccination and is thought to be partly responsible for the adverse effects of novel antiviral therapeutics such as intravenous immunoglobulins. There is a growing body of work examining the intracellular signaling pathways and epitopes responsible for mediating ADE, with a view to aiding rational design of antiviral strategies. With in vitro studies also confirming ADE as a feature of infection for a growing number of viruses, challenges remain in understanding the multilayered molecular mechanisms of ADE and its effect on viral pathogenesis.

Kinetics of Serologic Responses to MERS Coronavirus Infection in Humans, South Korea

We investigated the kinetics of serologic responses to Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection by using virus neutralization and MERS-CoV S1 IgG ELISA tests. In most patients, robust antibody responses developed by the third week of illness. Delayed antibody responses with the neutralization test were associated with more severe disease.

Association between the Severity of Influenza A(H7N9) Virus Infections and Length of the Incubation Period

BACKGROUND

In early 2013, a novel avian-origin influenza A(H7N9) virus emerged in China, and has caused sporadic human infections. The incubation period is the delay from infection until onset of symptoms, and varies from person to person. Few previous studies have examined whether the duration of the incubation period correlates with subsequent disease severity.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We analyzed data of period of exposure on 395 human cases of laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H7N9) virus infection in China in a Bayesian framework using a Weibull distribution. We found a longer incubation period for the 173 fatal cases with a mean of 3.7 days (95% credibility interval, CrI: 3.4-4.1), compared to a mean of 3.3 days (95% CrI: 2.9-3.6) for the 222 non-fatal cases, and the difference in means was marginally significant at 0.47 days (95% CrI: -0.04, 0.99). There was a statistically significant correlation between a longer incubation period and an increased risk of death after adjustment for age, sex, geographical location and underlying medical conditions (adjusted odds ratio 1.70 per day increase in incubation period; 95% credibility interval 1.47-1.97).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a significant association between a longer incubation period and a greater risk of death among human H7N9 cases. The underlying biological mechanisms leading to this association deserve further exploration.