Longitudinal profile of antibodies against SARS-coronavirus in SARS patients and their clinical significance

Preliminary Analysis of B- and T-Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Without a specific antiviral treatment or vaccine, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a global pandemic, affecting over 200 countries worldwide. A better understanding of B- and T-cell immunity is critical to the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

A cohort of 129 patients with COVID-19 and 20 suspected cases were enrolled in this study, and a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (LFIA) and a magnetic chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay (MCLIA) were evaluated for SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG detection. Additionally, 127 patients with COVID-19 were selected for the detection of IgM and IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 to evaluate B-cell immunity, and peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets were quantified in 95 patients with COVID-19 to evaluate T-cell immunity.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity of LFIA-IgM/IgG and MCLIA-IgM/IgG assays for detecting SARS-CoV infection were > 90%, comparable with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction detection. IgM antibody levels peaked on day 13 and began to fall on day 21, while IgG antibody levels peaked on day 17 and were maintained until tracking ended. Lymphocyte and subset enumeration suggested that lymphocytopenia occurred in patients with COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

LFIA-IgM/IgG and MCLIA-IgM/IgG assays can indicate SARS-CoV-2 infection, which elicits an antibody response. Lymphocytopenia occurs in patients with COVID-19, which possibly weakens the T-cell response.

The Race for a COVID-19 Vaccine: Current Trials, Novel Technologies, and Future Directions

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has presented a major threat to public health worldwide alongside unprecedented global economic and social implications. In the absence of a "gold standard" treatment, the rapid development of a safe and effective vaccine is considered the most promising way to control the pandemic. In recent years, traditional vaccine technologies have seemed insufficient to provide global protection against the rapid spread of emerging pandemics. Therefore, the establishment of novel approaches that are independent of whole pathogen cultivation, cost-effective, and able to be rapidly developed and produced on a large scale are of paramount importance for global health. This article summarizes the current efforts to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, including the ongoing and future anticipated clinical trials. We also provide plastic and reconstructive surgeons with insight into the novel technologies currently utilized for COVID-19 vaccine development, focusing on the very promising viral-vector-based and gene-based vaccine technologies. Each platform has its own advantages and disadvantages related to its efficacy and ability to induce certain immune responses, manufacturing capacity, and safety for human use. Once the fundamental key challenges have been addressed for viral-vector-based and gene-based vaccines, these novel technologies may become helpful in winning the fight against COVID-19 and transforming the future of health care.

Longitudinal Analysis of T and B Cell Receptor Repertoire Transcripts Reveal Dynamic Immune Response in COVID-19 Patients

Severe COVID-19 is associated with profound lymphopenia and an elevated neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio. We applied a novel dimer avoidance multiplexed polymerase chain reaction next-generation sequencing assay to analyze T (TCR) and B cell receptor (BCR) repertoires. Surprisingly, TCR repertoires were markedly diminished during the early onset of severe disease but recovered during the convalescent stage. Monitoring TCR repertoires could serve as an indicative biomarker to predict disease progression and recovery. Panoramic concurrent assessment of BCR repertoires demonstrated isotype switching and a transient but dramatic early IgA expansion. Dominant B cell clonal expansion with decreased diversity occurred following recovery from infection. Profound changes in T cell homeostasis raise critical questions about the early events in COVID-19 infection and demonstrate that immune repertoire analysis is a promising method for evaluating emergent host immunity to SARS-CoV-2 viral infection, with great implications for assessing vaccination and other immunological therapies.

Discordance between Serum Neutralizing Antibody Titers and the Recovery from COVID-19

The recent pandemic of COVID-19 has caused a tremendous alarm around the world. Details of the infection process in the host have significant bearings on both recovery from the disease and on the correlates of the protection from the future exposures. One of these factors is the presence and titers of neutralizing Abs (NAbs) in infected people. In the current study, we set out to investigate NAbs in the recovered subjects discharged from the hospital in full health. Serum samples from a total of 49 documented consecutive COVID-19 subjects were included in the study. All the subjects were adults, and serum samples collected during the discharge were tested in viral neutralization, enzyme immunoassay (EIA), and Western immunoblot tests against viral Ags. Even though a majority of the recovered subjects had raised significant NAb titers, there is a substantial number of recovered patients (10 out of 49) with no or low titers of NAbs against the virus. In these cohorts as well as in patients with high NAb titers, viral Ag binding Abs were detectable in EIA tests. Both NAb titers and EIA detectable Abs are increased in patients experiencing a severe form of the disease, and in older patients the Ab titers were heightened. The main conclusion is that the recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection is not solely dependent on high NAb titers in affected subjects, and this recovery process is probably produced by a complex interplay between many factors, including immune response, age of the subjects, and viral pathology.

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.

A COVID-19-Based Modified Epidemiological Model and Technological Approaches to Help Vulnerable Individuals Emerge from the Lockdown in the UK

COVID-19 has shown a relatively low case fatality rate in young healthy individuals, with the majority of this group being asymptomatic or having mild symptoms. However, the severity of the disease among the elderly as well as in individuals with underlying health conditions has caused significant mortality rates worldwide. Understanding this variance amongst different sectors of society and modelling this will enable the different levels of risk to be determined to enable strategies to be applied to different groups. Long-established compartmental epidemiological models like SIR and SEIR do not account for the variability encountered in the severity of the SARS-CoV-2 disease across different population groups. The objective of this study is to investigate how a reduction in the exposure of vulnerable individuals to COVID-19 can minimise the number of deaths caused by the disease, using the UK as a case study. To overcome the limitation of long-established compartmental epidemiological models, it is proposed that a modified model, namely SEIR-v, through which the population is separated into two groups regarding their vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 is applied. This enables the analysis of the spread of the epidemic when different contention measures are applied to different groups in society regarding their vulnerability to the disease. A Monte Carlo simulation (100,000 runs) along the proposed SEIR-v model is used to study the number of deaths which could be avoided as a function of the decrease in the exposure of vulnerable individuals to the disease. The results indicate a large number of deaths could be avoided by a slight realistic decrease in the exposure of vulnerable groups to the disease. The mean values across the simulations indicate 3681 and 7460 lives could be saved when such exposure is reduced by 10% and 20% respectively. From the encouraging results of the modelling a number of mechanisms are proposed to limit the exposure of vulnerable individuals to the disease. One option could be the provision of a wristband to vulnerable people and those without a smartphone and contact-tracing app, filling the gap created by systems relying on smartphone apps only. By combining very dense contact tracing data from smartphone apps and wristband signals with information about infection status and symptoms, vulnerable people can be protected and kept safer.

The Antibody Response to SARS-CoV-2 Infection

BACKGROUND

Testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibodies has become an important tool, complementing nucleic acid tests (NATs) for diagnosis and for determining the prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in population serosurveys. The magnitude and persistence of antibody responses are critical for assessing the duration of immunity.

METHODS

A SARS-CoV-2-specific immunofluorescent antibody (IFA) assay for immunoglobulin G (IgG), immunoglobulin A (IgA), and immunoglobulin M (IgM) was developed and prospectively evaluated by comparison to the reference standard of NAT on respiratory tract samples from individuals with suspected COVID-19. Neutralizing antibody responses were measured in a subset of samples using a standard microneutralization assay.

RESULTS

A total of 2753 individuals were eligible for the study (126 NAT-positive; prevalence, 4.6%). The median "window period" from illness onset to appearance of antibodies (range) was 10.2 (5.8-14.4) days. The sensitivity and specificity of either SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, or IgM when collected ≥14 days after symptom onset were 91.3% (95% CI, 84.9%-95.6%) and 98.9% (95% CI, 98.4%-99.3%), respectively. The negative predictive value was 99.6% (95% CI, 99.3%-99.8%). The positive predictive value of detecting any antibody class was 79.9% (95% CI, 73.3%-85.1%); this increased to 96.8% (95% CI, 90.7%-99.0%) for the combination of IgG and IgA.

CONCLUSIONS

Measurement of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody by IFA is an accurate method to diagnose COVID-19. Serological testing should be incorporated into diagnostic algorithms for SARS-CoV-2 infection to identify additional cases where NAT was not performed and resolve cases where false-negative and false-positive NATs are suspected. The majority of individuals develop robust antibody responses following infection, but the duration of these responses and implications for immunity remain to be established.

The laboratory's role in combating COVID-19

Since Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) first emerged in December 2019, the disease has rapidly evolved into a pandemic that threatens societies around the world. As soon as the causative pathogen, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was identified and its genome sequence determined, a laboratory diagnosis based on nucleic acid amplification technologies was quickly established and has played essential roles in the confirmation of a clinical diagnosis. Serological testing for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 is becoming available for complementary diagnosis, identification of convalescent plasma, and epidemiologic studies. Additional laboratory biochemical tests, including monitoring the change in blood cells, blood gas, coagulation, liver function, cardiac markers, and inflammatory responses such as cytokine levels in plasma, are also critical in combating COVID-19. Nevertheless, with overwhelming numbers of patients and potentially large numbers of asymptomatic cases, clinical laboratories encounter enormous challenges in diagnostic approaches that can rapidly and accurately identify infected persons. Strategies that can effectively detect disease progression in order to stratify patients for appropriate care, and that can thereby prevent exacerbation of the disease, are urgently needed. This review discusses the laboratory's role and challenges in combating COVID-19.

Serologic responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection among hospital staff with mild disease in eastern France

BACKGROUND

The serologic response of individuals with mild forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection is poorly characterized.

METHODS

Hospital staff who had recovered from mild forms of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using two assays: a rapid immunodiagnostic test (99.4% specificity) and the S-Flow assay (~99% specificity). The neutralizing activity of the sera was tested with a pseudovirus-based assay.

FINDINGS

Of 162 hospital staff who participated in the investigation, 160 reported SARS-CoV-2 infection that had not required hospital admission and were included in these analyses. The median time from symptom onset to blood sample collection was 24 days (IQR: 21-28, range 13-39). The rapid immunodiagnostic test detected antibodies in 153 (95.6%) of the samples and the S-Flow assay in 159 (99.4%), failing to detect antibodies in one sample collected 18 days after symptom onset (the rapid test did not detect antibodies in that patient). Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) were detected in 79%, 92% and 98% of samples collected 13-20, 21-27 and 28-41 days after symptom onset, respectively (P = 0.02).

INTERPRETATION

Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in virtually all hospital staff sampled from 13 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. This finding supports the use of serologic testing for the diagnosis of individuals who have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection. The neutralizing activity of the antibodies increased overtime. Future studies will help assess the persistence of the humoral response and its associated neutralization capacity in recovered patients.

FUNDINGS

The funders had no role in study design, data collection, interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Age-Related Differences in Immunological Responses to SARS-CoV-2

There is a striking age-related disparity in the prevalence and severity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-induced coronavirus disease 2019 infections, which might be explained by age-dependent immunological mechanisms. These include age-related physiological differences in immunological responses, cross-neutralizing antibodies, and differences in levels and binding affinity of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, the SARS-CoV-2 target receptor; antibody-dependent enhancement in adults manifesting with an overexuberant systemic inflammation in response to infection; and the increased likelihood of comorbidities in adults and the elderly. Emerging immunological phenomena such as Pediatric Multi-System Inflammatory Disorder Temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 or Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children are now being observed, though the underlying mechanisms are still unclear. Understanding the mechanisms through which pediatric patients are protected from severe novel coronaviruses infections will provide critical clues to the pathophysiology of coronavirus disease 2019 infection and inform future therapeutic and prophylactic interventions. Asymptomatic carriage in children may have major public health implications, which will have an impact on social and health care policies on screening and isolation practices, school reopening, and safe distancing requirements in the community.

Serology characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infection after exposure and post-symptom onset

BACKGROUND

Timely diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is a prerequisite for treatment and prevention. The serology characteristics and complement diagnosis value of the antibody test to RNA test need to be demonstrated.

METHOD

Serial sera of 80 patients with PCR-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were collected at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. Total antibody (Ab), IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were detected, and the antibody dynamics during the infection were described.

RESULTS

The seroconversion rates for Ab, IgM and IgG were 98.8%, 93.8% and 93.8%, respectively. The first detectible serology marker was Ab, followed by IgM and IgG, with a median seroconversion time of 15, 18 and 20 days post exposure (d.p.e.) or 9, 10 and 12 days post onset (d.p.o.), respectively. The antibody levels increased rapidly beginning at 6 d.p.o. and were accompanied by a decline in viral load. For patients in the early stage of illness (0-7 d.p.o), Ab showed the highest sensitivity (64.1%) compared with IgM and IgG (33.3% for both; p<0.001). The sensitivities of Ab, IgM and IgG increased to 100%, 96.7% and 93.3%, respectively, 2 weeks later. When the same antibody type was detected, no significant difference was observed between enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and other forms of immunoassays.

CONCLUSIONS

A typical acute antibody response is induced during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology testing provides an important complement to RNA testing in the later stages of illness for pathogenic-specific diagnosis and helpful information to evaluate the adapted immunity status of patients.

Loss of Bcl-6-Expressing T Follicular Helper Cells and Germinal Centers in COVID-19

Humoral responses in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are often of limited durability, as seen with other human coronavirus epidemics. To address the underlying etiology, we examined post mortem thoracic lymph nodes and spleens in acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and observed the absence of germinal centers and a striking reduction in Bcl-6⁺ germinal center B cells but preservation of AID⁺ B cells. Absence of germinal centers correlated with an early specific block in Bcl-6⁺ T_FH cell differentiation together with an increase in T-bet⁺ T_H1 cells and aberrant extra-follicular TNF-α accumulation. Parallel peripheral blood studies revealed loss of transitional and follicular B cells in severe disease and accumulation of SARS-CoV-2-specific "disease-related" B cell populations. These data identify defective Bcl-6⁺ T_FH cell generation and dysregulated humoral immune induction early in COVID-19 disease, providing a mechanistic explanation for the limited durability of antibody responses in coronavirus infections, and suggest that achieving herd immunity through natural infection may be difficult.

Pulmonary Fibrosis in COVID-19 Survivors: Predictive Factors and Risk Reduction Strategies

Although pulmonary fibrosis can occur in the absence of a clear-cut inciting agent, and without a clinically clear initial acute inflammatory phase, it is more commonly associated with severe lung injury. This may be due to respiratory infections, chronic granulomatous diseases, medications, and connective tissue disorders. Pulmonary fibrosis is associated with permanent pulmonary architectural distortion and irreversible lung dysfunction. Available clinical, radiographic, and autopsy data has indicated that pulmonary fibrosis is central to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (SARS) and MERS pathology, and current evidence suggests that pulmonary fibrosis could also complicate infection by SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this review is to explore the current literature on the pathogenesis of lung injury in COVID-19 infection. We evaluate the evidence in support of the putative risk factors for the development of lung fibrosis in the disease and propose risk mitigation strategies. We conclude that, from the available literature, the predictors of pulmonary fibrosis in COVID-19 infection are advanced age, illness severity, length of ICU stay and mechanical ventilation, smoking and chronic alcoholism. With no proven effective targeted therapy against pulmonary fibrosis, risk reduction measures should be directed at limiting the severity of the disease and protecting the lungs from other incidental injuries.

Longer Duration of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Case of Mild COVID-19 With Weak Production of the Specific IgM and IgG Antibodies

Background: The relationship between SARS-CoV-2-carrying time and specific antibody production has not yet been reported in re-admitted COVID-19 patients. We reported a case of mild COVID-19 with long virus-carrying time, weak production of virus-specific IgG and IgM antibodies, and recurrence of positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA in stool specimens after discharge.

Case Presentation: A 27-year-old male was diagnosed as COVID-19 after returning to Meizhou from Wuhan. Despite extremely mild symptoms, the patient was hospitalized for 24 days because of persistent positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection. Three days after recovery discharge, he was hospitalized again for 7 days due to a recurrence of the positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA result, while in a good physical condition. Serological assay, using a fluorescent immunochromatography detection kit specific to SARS-CoV-2, showed that SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM antibodies were undetectable and IgG antibodies were very low on day 8 after onset; both of the antibodies seemingly reached top concentrations on day 15 (just a 6-fold increase of the IgG titer), and then decreased, remaining relatively stable from day 25 after onset until discharge. The production of the IgM and IgG targeting SARS-CoV-2 in this very mild case was much lower than that in a severe case of COVID-19 during the same hospitalizing period, and the latter was used as a control.

Conclusion: Mild COVID-19 patients could carry SARS-CoV-2 for a long time, which may be related to the weak production of the virus-specific IgG and IgM. Recurrence of positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA could occur in mild COVID-19 possibly due to intermittent virus shedding, so strict quarantine and health surveillance should be taken for all discharged COVID-19 patients to prevent a potential virus spread.

Rekonvaleszentenplasma zur Behandlung von schwerem COVID-19: Rationale und Design einer randomisierten, offenen klinischen Studie von Rekonvaleszentenplasma verglichen mit bestmöglicher supportiver Behandlung (CAPSID-Studie)

Rekonvaleszentenplasma wurde bei Patienten mit akuten, viralen respiratorischen Erkrankungen mit schwerem Verlauf eingesetzt (SARS- oder MERS-Coronavirus, Influenza H1N1, H5N1). Diese Studien erbrachten Hinweise auf eine Reduktion der Viruslast, einer Verkürzung des Krankenhausaufenthalts und eine Reduktion der Mortalität durch Rekonvaleszentenplasma. Die Wirkung konnte jedoch nicht abschließend belegt werden, da es sich nicht um randomisierte Studien handelte. Nach einer SARS-CoV-2-Infektion kommt es bei den meisten Patienten zu einer raschen Bildung von neutralisierenden Antikörpern. Wegen der pandemischen Entwicklung gibt es eine wachsende Zahl Genesener mit neutralisierenden Antikörpern, die als potenzielle Spender in Betracht kommen. Wir konzipierten eine prospektive, randomisierte Studie, um die Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit von Rekonvaleszentenplasma zur Therapie von schwerem COVID-19 und dessen Wirkmechanismus zu untersuchen (CAPSID-Studie). In diesem Beitrag werden die Rationale und das Design der Studie vorgestellt.

The dynamics of humoral immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection and the potential for reinfection

SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus that is the causative agent of coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19). As of 17 April 2020, it has infected 2 114 269 people, resulting in 145 144 deaths. The timing, magnitude and longevity of humoral immunity is not yet understood for SARS-CoV-2. Nevertheless, understanding this is urgently required to inform the likely future dynamics of the pandemic, to guide strategies to allow relaxation of social distancing measures and to understand how to deploy limiting vaccine doses when they become available to achieve maximum impact. SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh human coronavirus to be described. Four human coronaviruses circulate seasonally and cause common colds. Two other coronaviruses, SARS and MERS, have crossed from animal sources into humans but have not become endemic. Here we review what is known about the human humoral immune response to epidemic SARS CoV and MERS CoV and to the seasonal, endemic coronaviruses. Then we summarize recent, mostly non-peer reviewed, studies into SARS-CoV-2 serology and reinfection in humans and non-human primates and summarize current pressing research needs.

The Loss of Bcl-6 Expressing T Follicular Helper Cells and the Absence of Germinal Centers in COVID-19

Humoral responses in COVID-19 disease are often of limited durability, as seen with other human coronavirus epidemics. To address the underlying etiology, we examined postmortem thoracic lymph nodes and spleens in acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and observed the absence of germinal centers, a striking reduction in Bcl-6+ germinal center B cells but preservation of AID+ B cells. Absence of germinal centers correlated with an early specific block in Bcl-6+TFH&nbsp;cell differentiation together with an increase in T-bet+TH1 cells and aberrant extra-follicular TNF-a accumulation.&nbsp; Parallel peripheral blood studies revealed loss of transitional and follicular B cells in severe disease and accumulation of SARS-CoV-2-specific "disease-related" B cell populations. These data identify defective Bcl-6+TFH cell generation and dysregulated humoral immune induction early in COVID-19 disease, providing a mechanistic explanation for the limited durability of antibody responses in coronavirus infections and suggest that achieving herd immunity through natural infection may be difficult. Funding: This work was supported by NIH U19 AI110495 to SP, NIH R01 AI146779 to AGS, NIH R01AI137057 and DP2DA042422 to DL, BMH was supported by NIGMS T32 GM007753, TMC was supported by T32 AI007245. Funding for these studies from the Massachusetts Consortium of Pathogen Readiness, the Mark and Lisa Schwartz Foundation and Enid Schwartz is also acknowledged. Conflict of Interest: None. Ethical Approval: This study was performed with the approval of the Institutional Review Boards at the Massachusetts General Hospital and the Brigham and Women's Hospital.

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.

Serum IgM against SARS-CoV-2 correlates with in-hospital mortality in severe/critical patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China

Severe/critical patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have become the central issue in the current global pandemic due to their high mortality rate. However, the relationship between antibody response and clinical outcomes has not been well described in this group. We conducted a single-center, retrospective, cohort study to investigate the relationship between serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM and clinical outcomes in severe/critical patients with COVID-19. Seventy-nine severe/critical patients with COVID-19 admitted in Wuhan Asia General Hospital in Wuhan, China during January 22, 2020 to March 6, 2020 were included. Serum antibodies were measured at day 25 (SD, 7) post illness onset. The median IgG titer was 113 (IQR 81-167) AU/ml, and IgM titer was 50 (IQR, 23-105) AU/ml. Patients whose IgM titer ≥ 50 AU/ml had higher in-hospital mortality (p=0.026). IgM titer ≥ 50 AU/ml was also correlated with higher incidences of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and sepsis shock. Antibody remeasurements were performed in 42 patients, where IgM titer declined significantly in survivors (p=0.031). Serum IgM titer changes according to the COVID-19 progression. The severe/critical patients with COVID-19 have a higher risk of clinical adverse events when IgM titer ≥ 50 AU/ml. Further decreasing of IgM could imply a better outcome in severe/critical cases.

SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence in blood donors located in three different federal states, Germany, March to June 2020

Most cases of coronavirus disease 2019 are mild or asymptomatic. Therefore, many cases remain unrecorded. We determined seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 3,186 regular blood donors in three German federal states between 9 March and 3 June 2020. The IgG seroprevalence was 0.91% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.58-1.24) overall, ranging from 0.66% (95% CI: 0.13-1.19) in Hesse to 1.22% (95% CI: 0.33-2.10) in Lower-Saxony.

Serological immunochromatographic approach in diagnosis with SARS-CoV-2 infected COVID-19 patients

An outbreak of new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 was occurred in Wuhan, China and rapidly spread to other cities and nations. The standard diagnostic approach that widely adopted in the clinic is nucleic acid detection by real-time RT-PCR. However, the false-negative rate of the technique is unneglectable and serological methods are urgently warranted. Here, we presented the colloidal gold-based immunochromatographic (ICG) strip targeting viral IgM or IgG antibody and compared it with real-time RT-PCR. The sensitivity of ICG assay with IgM and IgG combinatorial detection in nucleic acid confirmed cases were 11.1%, 92.9% and 96.8% at the early stage (1-7 days after onset), intermediate stage (8-14 days after onset), and late stage (more than 15 days), respectively. The ICG detection capacity in nucleic acid-negative suspected cases was 43.6%. In addition, the concordance of whole blood samples and plasma showed Cohen's kappa value of 0.93, which represented the almost perfect agreement between two types of samples. In conclusion, serological ICG strip assay in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection is both sensitive and consistent, which is considered as an excellent supplementary approach in clinical application.

Long-term and herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2: implications from current and past knowledge

Effective herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2 will be determined on many factors: the percentage of the immune population, the length and effectiveness of the immune response and the stability of the viral epitopes. The required percentage of immune individuals has been estimated to be 50–66% of the population which, given the current infection rates, will take long to be achieved. Furthermore, data from SARS-CoV suggest that the duration of immunity may not be sufficiently significant, while the immunity response against SARS-CoV-2 may not be efficiently effective in all patients, as relapses have already been reported. In addition, the development of mutant strains, which has already been documented, can cause the reemergence of the epidemic. In conclusion, the development of an effective vaccine is an urgent necessity, as long-term natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 may not be sufficient for the control of the current and future outbreaks.

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.

Protective Adaptive Immunity Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronaviruses 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Implications for Vaccines

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an emerging human coronavirus responsible for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a predominantly respiratory disease that has become a global pandemic. Millions of people worldwide are suffering from COVID-19, and hundreds of thousands of those infected have died. Nevertheless, many more people who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic or suffer a mild disease characterized by dry cough and mild fever. This new pandemic poses a threat to public health on a global scale, and an intervention to prevent continued spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus is of the utmost importance. To assess preventive and therapeutic strategies, it is imperative to understand the pathogenesis and immune response against SARS-CoV-2. In this review, we concentrate on the protective adaptive immune response elicited by this novel coronavirus as well as requirements for a successful vaccine inducing optimal protection.

Herd Immunity: Understanding COVID-19

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its associated disease, COVID-19, has demonstrated the devastating impact of a novel, infectious pathogen on a susceptible population. Here, we explain the basic concepts of herd immunity and discuss its implications in the context of COVID-19.

Predicting the Immunogenicity of T cell epitopes: From HIV to SARS-CoV-2

We describe a physics-based learning model for predicting the immunogenicity of Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte (CTL) epitopes derived from diverse pathogens, given a Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) genotype. The model was trained and tested on experimental data on the relative immunodominance of CTL epitopes in Human Immunodeficiency Virus infection. The method is more accurate than publicly available models. Our model predicts that only a fraction of SARS-CoV-2 epitopes that have been predicted to bind to HLA molecules is immunogenic. The immunogenic CTL epitopes across all SARS-CoV-2 proteins are predicted to provide broad population coverage, but the immunogenic epitopes in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein alone are unlikely to do so. Our model predicts that several immunogenic SARS-CoV-2 CTL epitopes are identical to those contained in low-pathogenicity coronaviruses circulating in the population. Thus, we suggest that some level of CTL immunity against COVID-19 may be present in some individuals prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Recent Insight into SARS-CoV2 Immunopathology and Rationale for Potential Treatment and Preventive Strategies in COVID-19

As the outbreak of the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection is spreading globally, great effort is being made to understand the disease pathogenesis and host factors that predispose to disease progression in an attempt to find a window of opportunity for intervention. In addition to the direct cytopathic effect of the virus, the host hyper-inflammatory response has emerged as a key factor in determining disease severity and mortality. Accumulating clinical observations raised hypotheses to explain why some patients develop more severe disease while others only manifest mild or no symptoms. So far, Covid-19 management remains mainly supportive. However, many researches are underway to clarify the role of antiviral and immunomodulating drugs in changing morbidity and mortality in patients who become severely ill. This review summarizes the current state of knowledge on the interaction between SARS-CoV-2 and the host immune system and discusses recent findings on proposed pharmacologic treatments.

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.

Seasonality and immunity to laboratory-confirmed seasonal coronaviruses (HCoV-NL63, HCoV-OC43, and HCoV-229E): results from the Flu Watch cohort study

Background: There is currently a pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. The intensity and duration of this first wave in the UK may be dependent on whether SARS-CoV-2 transmits more effectively in the winter than the summer and the UK Government response is partially built upon the assumption that those infected will develop immunity to reinfection in the short term. In this paper we examine evidence for seasonality and immunity to laboratory-confirmed seasonal coronavirus (HCoV) from a prospective cohort study in England. Methods: In this analysis of the Flu Watch cohort, we examine seasonal trends for PCR-confirmed coronavirus infections (HCoV-NL63, HCoV-OC43, and HCoV-229E) in all participants during winter seasons (2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009) and during the first wave of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic (May-Sep 2009). We also included data from the pandemic and 'post-pandemic' winter seasons (2009-2010 and 2010-2011) to identify individuals with two confirmed HCoV infections and examine evidence for immunity against homologous reinfection. Results: We tested 1,104 swabs taken during respiratory illness and detected HCoV in 199 during the first four seasons. The rate of confirmed HCoV infection across all seasons was 390 (95% CI 338-448) per 100,000 person-weeks; highest in the Nov-Mar 2008/9 season at 674 (95%CI 537-835). The highest rate was in February at 759 (95% CI 580-975). Data collected during May-Sep 2009 showed there was small amounts of ongoing transmission, with four cases detected during this period. Eight participants had two confirmed infections, of which none had the same strain twice. Conclusion: Our results provide evidence that HCoV infection in England is most intense in winter, but that there is a small amount of ongoing transmission during summer periods. We found some evidence of immunity against homologous reinfection.

Antibody seroconversion in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

OBJECTIVES

Asymptomatic and symptomatic patients may transmit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but their clinical features and immune responses remain largely unclear. We aimed to characterise the clinical features and immune responses of asymptomatic and symptomatic patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

We collected clinical, laboratory and epidemiological records of patients hospitalised in a coronavirus field hospital in Wuhan. We performed qualitative detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) using archived blood samples.

RESULTS

Of 214 patients with SARS-CoV-2, 26 (12%) were asymptomatic at hospital admission and during hospitalisation. Most asymptomatic patients were ≤ 60 years (96%) and females (65%) and had few comorbidities (< 16%). Serum levels of white and red blood cells were higher in asymptomatic than in symptomatic patients (P-values < 0.05). During hospitalisation, IgG seroconversion was commonly observed in both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients (85% versus 94%, P-value = 0.07); in contrast, IgM seroconversion was less common in asymptomatic than in symptomatic patients (31% versus 74%, P-value < 0.001). The median time from the first virus-positive screening to IgG or IgM seroconversion was significantly shorter in asymptomatic than in symptomatic patients (median: 7 versus 14 days, P-value < 0.01). Furthermore, IgG/IgM seroconversion rates increased concomitantly with the clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. At the time of virus clearance, IgG/IgM titres and plasma neutralisation capacity were significantly lower in recovered asymptomatic than in recovered symptomatic patients (P-values < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Asymptomatic and symptomatic patients exhibited different kinetics of IgG/IgM responses to SARS-CoV-2. Asymptomatic patients may transmit SARS-CoV-2, highlighting the importance of early diagnosis and treatment.

Persistence of Antibodies against Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus

To determine how long antibodies against Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus persist, we measured long-term antibody responses among persons serologically positive or indeterminate after a 2012 outbreak in Jordan. Antibodies, including neutralizing antibodies, were detectable in 6 (86%) of 7 persons for at least 34 months after the outbreak.

NSFC spurs significant basic research progress of respiratory medicine in China

Over the years, research in respiratory medicine has progressed rapidly in China. This commentary narrates the role of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) in supporting the basic research of respiratory medicine, summarizes the major progress of respiratory medicine in China, and addresses the main future research directions sponsored by the NSFC.

Hospital-associated outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus: a serologic, epidemiologic, and clinical description

BACKGROUND

In April 2012, the Jordan Ministry of Health investigated an outbreak of lower respiratory illnesses at a hospital in Jordan; 2 fatal cases were retrospectively confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) to be the first detected cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV).

METHODS

Epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of selected potential cases were assessed through serum blood specimens, medical record reviews, and interviews with surviving outbreak members, household contacts, and healthcare personnel. Cases of MERS-CoV infection were identified using 3 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention serologic tests for detection of anti-MERS-CoV antibodies.

RESULTS

Specimens and interviews were obtained from 124 subjects. Seven previously unconfirmed individuals tested positive for anti-MERS-CoV antibodies by at least 2 of 3 serologic tests, in addition to 2 fatal cases identified by rRT-PCR. The case-fatality rate among the 9 total cases was 22%. Six subjects were healthcare workers at the outbreak hospital, yielding an attack rate of 10% among potentially exposed outbreak hospital personnel. There was no evidence of MERS-CoV transmission at 2 transfer hospitals having acceptable infection control practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel serologic tests allowed for the detection of otherwise unrecognized cases of MERS-CoV infection among contacts in a Jordanian hospital-associated respiratory illness outbreak in April 2012, resulting in a total of 9 test-positive cases. Serologic results suggest that further spread of this outbreak to transfer hospitals did not occur. Most subjects had no major, underlying medical conditions; none were on hemodialysis. Our observed case-fatality rate was lower than has been reported from outbreaks elsewhere.

Hospital-associated outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus: a serologic, epidemiologic, and clinical description

BACKGROUND

In April 2012, the Jordan Ministry of Health investigated an outbreak of lower respiratory illnesses at a hospital in Jordan; 2 fatal cases were retrospectively confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) to be the first detected cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV).

METHODS

Epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of selected potential cases were assessed through serum blood specimens, medical record reviews, and interviews with surviving outbreak members, household contacts, and healthcare personnel. Cases of MERS-CoV infection were identified using 3 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention serologic tests for detection of anti-MERS-CoV antibodies.

RESULTS

Specimens and interviews were obtained from 124 subjects. Seven previously unconfirmed individuals tested positive for anti-MERS-CoV antibodies by at least 2 of 3 serologic tests, in addition to 2 fatal cases identified by rRT-PCR. The case-fatality rate among the 9 total cases was 22%. Six subjects were healthcare workers at the outbreak hospital, yielding an attack rate of 10% among potentially exposed outbreak hospital personnel. There was no evidence of MERS-CoV transmission at 2 transfer hospitals having acceptable infection control practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel serologic tests allowed for the detection of otherwise unrecognized cases of MERS-CoV infection among contacts in a Jordanian hospital-associated respiratory illness outbreak in April 2012, resulting in a total of 9 test-positive cases. Serologic results suggest that further spread of this outbreak to transfer hospitals did not occur. Most subjects had no major, underlying medical conditions; none were on hemodialysis. Our observed case-fatality rate was lower than has been reported from outbreaks elsewhere.

MERS coronavirus: data gaps for laboratory preparedness

Since the emergence of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in 2012, many questions remain on modes of transmission and sources of virus. In outbreak situations, especially with emerging organisms causing severe human disease, it is important to understand the full spectrum of disease, and shedding kinetics in relation to infectivity and the ability to transmit the microorganism. Laboratory response capacity during the early stages of an outbreak focuses on development of virological and immunological methods for patient diagnosis, for contact tracing, and for epidemiological studies into sources, modes of transmission, identification of risk groups, and animal reservoirs. However, optimal use of this core public health laboratory capacity requires a fundamental understanding of kinetics of viral shedding and antibody response, of assay validation and of interpretation of test outcomes. We reviewed available data from MERS-CoV case reports, and compared this with data on kinetics of shedding and immune response from published literature on other human coronaviruses (hCoVs). We identify and discuss important data gaps, and biases that limit the laboratory preparedness to this novel disease. Public health management will benefit from standardised reporting of methods used, details of test outcomes by sample type, sampling date, in relation to symptoms and risk factors, along with the currently reported demographic, clinical and epidemiological findings.

Duration of antibody responses after severe acute respiratory syndrome

Among 176 patients who had had severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), SARS-specific antibodies were maintained for an average of 2 years, and significant reduction of immunoglobulin G–positive percentage and titers occurred in the third year. Thus, SARS patients might be susceptible to reinfection >3 years after initial exposure.

Respirology year-in-review 2006: Basic science

The year 2006 was a good year for basic science publications in Respirology with a lot of the studies being relevant to clinical practice. In this respect many of the publications focused on biomarkers of disease and so much so that these have been discussed at the end of this review. The majority of manuscripts are related to airway diseases, respiratory infections, interstitial lung diseases and lung cancers, and are discussed under these headings.