Multicenter evaluation of four immunoassays for the performance of early diagnosis of COVID-19 and assessment of antibody responses of patients with pneumonia in Taiwan

Inhalable chitosan-based hydrogel as a mucosal adjuvant for hydroxychloroquine in the treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a hamster model

BACKGROUND

Effective therapy for COVID-19 remains limited. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been considered, but safety and efficacy concerns remain. Chitosan exhibits antiviral and immunomodulatory effects, yet how the combination of HCQ and chitosan performs in treating COVID-19 is unknown.

METHODS

Male Syrian hamsters were inoculated intranasally with standardized stocks of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Hamsters were allocated to saline (PBS), chitosan oligosaccharide (COS), HCQ, or COS + HCQ groups and received corresponding drugs. On days 1, 7, and 14 post-infection, two animals from each group were euthanized for sample collection. Viral loads were measured in lung homogenates. Biochemistry markers, cytokines, and immunoglobulins were analyzed from hamster sera. HCQ concentrations were compared between the blood, bronchoalveolar lavage, and lung tissues. All groups underwent histopathology exams of the lungs. Additional hamsters were treated with the same drugs to assess for toxicities to the heart and liver.

RESULTS

Among all groups, viral loads in the COS + HCQ group were the lowest by day 8. The COS + HCQ group produced the highest interleukin (IL)-6 levels on day 4, and the highest IL-10, IgA and IgG levels on day 8. HCQ concentrations were higher in the COS + HCQ group's lungs than the HCQ group, despite having received half the dose of HCQ. Histopathology demonstrated earlier inflammation resolution and swifter viral clearance in the COS + HCQ group. There was no evidence of cardiac or hepatic injury in hamsters that received HCQ.

CONCLUSION

In hamsters infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the combination of intranasal COS and HCQ was associated with increased HCQ absorption in the lungs, more effective immune responses, without increasing the risk of hepatic or cardiac injuries.

To PCR or not? The impact of shifting policy from PCR to rapid antigen tests to diagnose COVID-19 during the omicron epidemic: a nationwide surveillance study

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had caused huge impacts worldwide. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the mainstay diagnostic modality. In most hospitals in Taiwan, samples for PCR are collected at emergency department (ER) or outdoor clinics to avoid virus spread inside hospitals. Home rapid antigen test (RAT) is a feasible, low-cost, and convenient tool with moderate sensitivity and high specificity, which can be performed at home to reduce hospital visits. Due to comparably low severity of omicron variant and high vaccine coverage (~80% residents fully vaccinated with AstraZeneca, Moderna, or Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines as of March 2022), the policy was shifted from containment to co-existing with COVID-19 in Taiwan. Virus spread rapidly in the community after the ease of social restrictive measurements. To acquire a confirmed diagnosis, PCR testing was requested for people with suspected COVID-19 infection. As a consequence, people with respiratory symptoms or contact history surged into hospitals for PCR testing, thus, the medical capacity was challenged. The diagnostic policy was altered from PCR to RAT, but the impact of diagnostic policy change remains unclear.

Objectives

We conducted this study to investigate the number of COVID-19 cases, PCR testing, hospitalizations, mortalities, and hospital visits during the epidemic and evaluate the impact of diagnostic policy change on hospital visits.

Methods

The diagnostic policy change was implemented in late May 2022. We used nationwide and hospital-based data of COVID-19 cases, PCR testing, hospitalizations, mortalities, and hospital visits before and after policy change as of 31 Jul 2022.

Results

During the omicron epidemic, significant and synchronous increase of COVID-19 patients, PCR testing, hospital visits were observed. COVID-19 cases increased exponentially since April 2022 and the COVID-19 patients peaked in June (1,943, 55,571, and 61,511 average daily new cases in April, May, and June, respectively). The PCR testing peaked in May (85,788 daily tests) with high positive rate (81%). The policy of RAT as confirmatory diagnosis was implemented on 26 May 2022 and a substantial decline of PCR testing numbers occurred (85,788 and 83,113 daily tests in May and June). People hospitalized for COVID-19 peaked in June (821.8 patients per day) and decreased in July (549.5 patients). The mortality cases also peaked in June (147 cases/day). This trend was also validated by the hospital-based data with a significant decrease of emergency department visits (11,397 visits in May while 8,126 visits in June) and PCR testing (21,314 in May and 6,158 in June). The proportion of people purely for PCR testing also decreased (10-26 vs. 5-14%, before and after policy change, respectively).

Conclusions

The impact of diagnostic policy change was a complicated issue and our study demonstrated the huge impact of diagnostic policy on health seeking behavior. The PCR testing numbers and emergency department visits had substantial decrease after diagnostic policy change, and the plateau of epidemic peak eased gradually in ~1 month later. Widespread RAT application may contribute to the decreased hospital visits and preserve medical capacity. Our study provides some evidences for policy maker's reference.

Immunological responses and adverse reactions of the heterologous second booster dose of BNT162b2 after two-dose CoronaVac for COVID-19 vaccination in healthcare workers of Faculty of Medicine, Naresuan University

BACKGROUND

The first COVID-19 vaccination campaign in Thailand began in April 2020, with healthcare workers receiving two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine (CoronaVac). However, the emergence of the delta and omicron variants raised concerns about vaccine effectiveness. The Thai Ministry of Public Health provided the first booster dose (third dose) and second booster dose (fourth dose) of the mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) for healthcare workers. This study investigated the immunity and adverse reactions elicited by a heterologous second booster dose of BNT162b2 after a two-dose CoronaVac vaccination for COVID-19 in healthcare workers of the Faculty of Medicine, Naresuan University.

METHODS

IgG titres against the SARS-CoV-2-spike protein were measured four and 24 weeks after the second booster dose of BNT162b2 in the study participants. Adverse reactions were recorded during the first three days, four weeks and 24 weeks after the second booster dose of BNT162b2.

RESULTS

IgG against the SARS-CoV-2-spike protein was positive (>10 U/ml) in 246 of 247 participants (99.6 %) at both four and 24 weeks after the second booster dose of BNT162b2. The median specific IgG titres at four and 24 weeks after the second booster dose of BNT162b2 were 299 U/ml (min: 2, max: 29,161) and 104 U/ml (min: 1, max: 17,920), respectively. The median IgG level declined significantly 24 weeks after the second booster dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Of the 247 participants, 179 (72.5 %) experienced adverse reactions in the first three days after the second booster dose of BNT162b2. Myalgia, fever, headache, injection site pain and fatigue were the most common adverse reactions.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that a heterologous second booster dose of BNT162b2 after two doses of CoronaVac induced elevated IgG against the SARS-CoV-2-spike protein and caused minor adverse reactions in healthcare workers of the Faculty of Medicine, Naresuan University. This study was registered as Thailand Clinical Trials No. TCTR20221112001.

Immunogenicity and safety of homologous and heterologous ChAdOx1-S and mRNA-1273 vaccinations in healthy adults in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

In Taiwan, the vaccination program started in March 2021, with ChAdOx1-S being the first available WHO-approved COVID-19 vaccine, followed by Moderna vaccine. This study aimed to investigate the immunogenicity and safety of homologous and heterologous prime-boost regimens with ChAdOx1-S and mRNA-1273.

METHODS

From March to November 2021, homologous or heterologous regimens with ChAdOx1-S and mRNA-1273 vaccination (ChAdOx1-S/ChAdOx1-S, mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1-S/mRNA-1273) were given to 945 healthy participants. Serum samples were collected at designated time points. The anti-RBD/S1 antibody titers and neutralizing ability were measured by three different immunoassays: Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany), AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II (Abbott Diagnostics Division, Sligo, Ireland), and cPass™ SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit (GenScript, New Jersey, USA).

RESULTS

We found that heterologous vaccination with ChAdOx1-S/mRNA-1273 had an acceptable safety profile and induced higher total anti-RBD/S1 antibody production (p < 0.0001), yet lower anti-RBD/S1 IgG titer (p < 0.0001) and neutralizing ability (p = 0.0101) than mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273 group. Both regimens showed higher antibody titers and superior neutralizing abilities than ChAdOx1-S/ChAdOx1-S. An age-dependent antibody response to ChAdOx1-S/mRNA-1273 was shown after both the priming and the booster doses. Younger age was associated with higher antibody production and neutralizing ability.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterologous ChAdOx1-S/mRNA-1273 vaccination regimen is generally safe and induces a robust humoral immune response that is non-inferior to that of mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273.

State-wide random seroprevalence survey of SARS-CoV-2 past infection in a southern US State, 2020

The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to estimate the proportion of Arkansas residents who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus between May and December 2020 and to assess the determinants of infection. To estimate seroprevalence, a state-wide population-based random-digit dial sample of non-institutionalized adults in Arkansas was surveyed. Exposures were age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, occupation, contact with infected persons, comorbidities, height, and weight. The outcome was past COVID-19 infection measured by serum antibody test. We found a prevalence of 15.1% (95% CI: 11.1%, 20.2%) by December 2020. Seropositivity was significantly elevated among participants who were non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic (prevalence ratio [PRs]:1.4 [95% CI: 0.8, 2.4] and 2.3 [95% CI: 1.3, 4.0], respectively), worked in high-demand essential services (PR: 2.5 [95% CI: 1.5, 4.1]), did not have a college degree (PR: 1.6 [95% CI: 1.0, 2.4]), had an infected household or extra-household contact (PRs: 4.7 [95% CI: 2.1, 10.1] and 2.6 [95% CI: 1.2, 5.7], respectively), and were contacted in November or December (PR: 3.6 [95% CI: 1.9, 6.9]). Our results indicate that by December 2020, one out six persons in Arkansas had a past SARS-CoV-2 infection.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the sensitivity of antibody tests for the laboratory confirmation of COVID-19

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the utility of serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 during the first week of symptom onset in patients confirmed with the real-time RT-PCR. Materials & methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 58 publications were performed using data obtained from Academic Search Ultimate, Africa-wide, Scopus, Web of Science and MEDLINE. Results: We found that the highest pooled sensitivities were obtained with ELISA IgM-IgG and chemiluminescence immunoassay IgM tests. Conclusion: Serological tests have low sensitivity within the first week of symptom onset and cannot replace nucleic acid amplification tests. However, serological assays can be used to support nucleic acid amplification tests.