Search

Introduction: The clinical manifestations of acute severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggest a dysregulation of the host immune response that leads to inflammation, thrombosis, and organ dysfunction. It is less clear whether these dysregulated processes persist during the convalescent phase of disease or during long COVID. We sought to examine the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the proportions of classical, intermediate, and nonclassical monocytes, their activation status, and their functional properties in convalescent COVID-19 patients., Methods: Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from convalescent COVID-19 patients and uninfected controls were analyzed by multiparameter flow cytometry to determine relative percentages of total monocytes and monocyte subsets. The expression of activation markers and proinflammatory cytokines in response to LPS treatment were measured by flow cytometry and ELISA, respectively., Results: We found that the percentage of total monocytes was decreased in convalescent COVID-19 patients compared to uninfected controls. This was due to decreased intermediate and non-classical monocytes. Classical monocytes from convalescent COVID-19 patients demonstrated a decrease in activation markers, such as CD56, in response to stimulation with bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS). In addition, classical monocytes from convalescent COVID-19 patients showed decreased expression of CD142 (tissue factor), which can initiate the extrinsic coagulation cascade, in response to LPS stimulation. Finally, we found that monocytes from convalescent COVID-19 patients produced less TNF-α and IL-6 in response to LPS stimulation, than those from uninfected controls., Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 infection exhibits a clear effect on the relative proportions of monocyte subsets, the activation status of classical monocytes, and proinflammatory cytokine production that persists during the convalescent phase of disease., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Ravkov, Williams, Elgort, Barker, Planelles, Spivak, Delgado, Lin and Hanley.)

In this retrospective international multicenter study, we describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and related disorders (small lymphocytic lymphoma and high-count monoclonal B lymphocytosis) infected by SARS-CoV-2, including the development of post-COVID condition. Data from 1540 patients with CLL infected by SARS-CoV-2 from January 2020 to May 2022 were included in the analysis and assigned to four phases based on cases disposition and SARS-CoV-2 variants emergence. Post-COVID condition was defined according to the WHO criteria. Patients infected during the most recent phases of the pandemic, though carrying a higher comorbidity burden, were less often hospitalized, rarely needed intensive care unit admission, or died compared to patients infected during the initial phases. The 4-month overall survival (OS) improved through the phases, from 68% to 83%, p = .0015. Age, comorbidity, CLL-directed treatment, but not vaccination status, emerged as risk factors for mortality. Among survivors, 6.65% patients had a reinfection, usually milder than the initial one, and 16.5% developed post-COVID condition. The latter was characterized by fatigue, dyspnea, lasting cough, and impaired concentration. Infection severity was the only risk factor for developing post-COVID. The median time to resolution of the post-COVID condition was 4.7 months. OS in patients with CLL improved during the different phases of the pandemic, likely due to the improvement of prophylactic and therapeutic measures against SARS-CoV-2 as well as the emergence of milder variants. However, mortality remained relevant and a significant number of patients developed post-COVID conditions, warranting further investigations., (© 2023 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is a promising option for patients with heavily treated multiple myeloma. Point-of-care manufacturing can increase the availability of these treatments worldwide. We aimed to assess the safety and activity of ARI0002h, a BCMA-targeted CAR T-cell therapy developed by academia, in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Methods: CARTBCMA-HCB-01 is a single-arm, multicentre study done in five academic centres in Spain. Eligible patients had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma and were aged 18-75 years; with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2; two or more previous lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 antibody; refractoriness to the last line of therapy; and measurable disease according to the International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Patients received an initial fractionated infusion of 3 × 10 6 CAR T cells per kg bodyweight in three aliquots (0·3, 0·9, and 1·8 × 10 6 CAR-positive cells per kg intravenously on days 0, 3, and 7) and a non-fractionated booster dose of up to 3 × 10 6 CAR T cells per kg bodyweight, at least 100 days after the first infusion. The primary endpoints were overall response rate 100 days after first infusion and the proportion of patients developing cytokine-release syndrome or neurotoxic events in the first 30 days after receiving treatment. Here, we present an interim analysis of the ongoing trial; enrolment has ended. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04309981, and EudraCT, 2019-001472-11., Findings: Between June 2, 2020, and Feb 24, 2021, 44 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 35 (80%) were enrolled. 30 (86%) of 35 patients received ARI0002h (median age 61 years [IQR 53-65], 12 [40%] were female, and 18 [60%] were male). At the planned interim analysis (cutoff date Oct 20, 2021), with a median follow-up of 12·1 months (IQR 9·1-13·5), overall response during the first 100 days from infusion was 100%, including 24 (80%) of 30 patients with a very good partial response or better (15 [50%] with complete response, nine [30%] with very good partial response, and six [20%] with partial response). Cytokine-release syndrome was observed in 24 (80%) of 30 patients (all grade 1-2). No cases of neurotoxic events were observed. Persistent grade 3-4 cytopenias were observed in 20 (67%) patients. Infections were reported in 20 (67%) patients. Three patients died: one because of progression, one because of a head injury, and one due to COVID-19., Interpretation: ARI0002h administered in a fractioned manner with a booster dose after 3 months can provide deep and sustained responses in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, with a low toxicity, especially in terms of neurological events, and with the possibility of a point-of-care approach., Funding: Instituto de Salud Carlos III (co-funded by the EU), Fundación La Caixa, and Fundació Bosch i Aymerich., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AO-C declares support for attending meetings from Janssen. VG-C declares receiving honoraria from Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS)/Celgene, and GSK; support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen and GSK; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory board from Janssen. VC declares receiving honoraria from Janssen, BMS, Sanofi, GSK, and Amgen; support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory board from Janssen, Sanofi, and Amgen. PR-O declares receiving honoraria from consulting activities from BMS, Janssen, Sanofi, Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, and GSK; honoraria from lectures from BMS, Janssen, Sanofi and GSK; support for attending meetings or travel from Abbvie; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory board from Janssen. JLR declares receiving consulting fees from Janssen; honoraria from Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, and BMS; support for attending meetings or travel from Kite/Gilead; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory board from Janssen, BMS, and Novartis. LL-C declares receiving honoraria from Kite/Gilead, Celgene, Janssen, and Novartis; support for attending meetings or travel from Kite/Gilead, Celgene, Janssen, and Novartis; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory board from Janssen. BM-A declares to be co-inventor in the patent of ARI0002. LR declares honoraria from Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi, and GSK; participation on data safety monitoring or advisory board of Janssen, BMS-Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi, and GSK. ML-P declares receiving consulting fees from Celgene/BMS; honoraria from Janssen and Kite/Gilead; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory board from Celgene/BMS and Novartis. LGR-L declares honoraria from Janssen, GSK, Sanofi, and BMS; travel grants from Janssen, Amgen, GSK, Pfizer and Sanofi; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory board from GSK and Sanofi. AS-S declares receiving travel grants from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and MSD. JAP-S declares research and travel support Takeda, Abbvie, Gilead, AMGEN, Jazz, Alexion, Pierre Fabre and Beigene; educational activities, speaker, and advisory fees with Gilead, Jazz, Alexion, AMGEN, Novartis, Janssen, BMS, and MSD; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory board from Gilead, Jazz, Alexion, AMGEN, Novartis, Janssen, BMS and MSD. BP reports research funding from BMS, GSK, Roche, Beigene, and Sanofi; consultancy fees from BMS, GSK, Janssen, Sanofi and Takeda; honoraria from Adaptive, Amgen, Becton Dickinson, BMS/Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Sanofi, and Roche; and support for attending meetings from GSK. FP declares receiving grants from the Spanish Ministry of Health (ISCIII) and the Government of Navarra; honoraria from Janssen, Oryzon, Dialectica, Novartis, Instituto Roche, Servier, ViviaBiotech, and Techspert; support for attending meetings or travel from Gilead, Celgene, and Janssen; and a leadership or fiduciary role in RICORS Terav and IDISNA. MJ declares receiving research or travel support by Fundació Bancaria la Caixa, ISCIII, and CellNex Teleom; honoraria from educational activities, speaker, and advisory roles with Miltenyi and indirectly with sponsors of congresses; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards with MAB Gyala. JMM declares receiving honoriaria from Gilead/Kite, Novartis, BMS/Celgene, and Roche; travel grants, accommodation, and expenses from Jazz Pharma, Gilead-Kite, Janssen, and Sandoz; and consulting or advisory board fees in Jazz Pharma, Novartis, and Sandoz. M-VM declares honoraria derived from lectures and participation in advisory boards from Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, GSK, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, and Sanofi. MP declares receiving honoraria from Thermofisher Scientific and LetiPharma. AU-I declares receiving grants from the Spanish Ministry of Health (ISCIII); honoraria for lectures from BMS and Gilead; support for attending meetings from Amgen; 23% of participation in ARI-002 patent ARI-001 patent in preparation; advisory board fees and participation in Miltenyi biomedicine; being coordinator of the Spanish group of CAR T-cell therapy. CFL declares receiving grants through his institution from BMS, Janssen, and Amgen; honoraria from Amgen, Janssen, BMS, GSK, and Sanofi; support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen, BMS, GSK, and Amgen; and participation in data safety monitoring or advisory boards with Janssen, BMS, Amgen, Pfizer, and Sanofi. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study evaluated the discordance between Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG and EUROIMMUN SARS-COV-2 ELISA in a seroprevalence study., Methods: From June 10 to August 15, 2020, 8,246 specimens were dually evaluated by the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott) and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA (EI) assays. Sex-stratified phi correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the concordance between Abbott and EI assay's quantitative results. Multivariable mixed-effect logistic models were implemented to evaluate the association between assay positivity and sex on a low prevalence sample while controlling for age, race, ethnicity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, immunosuppressive therapy, and autoimmune disease., Results: EI positivity among males was 2.1-fold that of females; however, no significant differences in Abbott positivity were observed between sexes. At the manufacturer-recommended threshold, the phi correlation coefficient for the Abbott and EI qualitative results among females (Φ = 0.47) was 34% greater than males (Φ = 0.35). The unadjusted and fully adjusted models yielded a strong association between sex and positive EI result for the low prevalence subgroup (unadjusted OR: 2.24, CI: 1.63, 3.11, adjusted OR: 3.40, CI: 2.15, 5.39). A similar analysis of Abbott positivity in the low prevalence subgroup did not find an association with any of the covariates examined. Significant quantitative and qualitative discordance was observed between Abbott and EI throughout the seroprevalence study. Our results suggest the presence of sex-associated specificity limitations with the EI assay. As these findings may extend to other anti-S assays utilized for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence investigations, further investigation is needed to evaluate the generalizability of these findings., Competing Interests: The authors declare they have no competing interests. Joel D. Hartsell is an employee of Epi-Vant LLC. Julio C. Delgado is an employee of ARUP Laboratories., (©2023 Hartsell et al.)

The gold-standard method to evaluate a functional antiviral immune response is to titer neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against a viral pathogen. This is historically performed using an in vitro assay of virus-mediated infection, which requires BSL-3 facilities. As these are insufficient in Latin American countries, including Mexico, scant information is obtained locally about viral pathogens NAb, using a functional assay. An alternative solution to using a BSL-3 assay with live virus is to use a BSL-2-safe assay with a non-replicative pseudovirus. Pseudoviral particles can be engineered to display a selected pathogen's entry protein on their surface, and to deliver a reporter gene into target cells upon transduction. Here we comprehensively describe the first development of a BSL-2 safe NAbs-measuring functional assay in Mexico, based on the production of pseudotyped lentiviral particles. As proof-of-concept, the assay is based on Nanoluc luciferase-mediated luminescence measurements from target cells transduced with SARS-CoV-2 Spike-pseudotyped lentiviral particles. We applied the optimized assay in a BSL-2 facility to measure NAbs in 65 serum samples, which evidenced the assay with 100% sensitivity, 86.6% specificity and 96% accuracy. Overall, this is the first report of a BSL-2 safe pseudovirus-based functional assay developed in Mexico to measure NAbs, and a cornerstone methodology necessary to measure NAbs with a functional assay in limited resources settings., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered the development of numerous diagnostic tools to monitor infection and to determine immune response. Although assays to measure binding antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 are widely available, more specific tests measuring neutralization activities of antibodies are immediately needed to quantify the extent and duration of protection that results from infection or vaccination. We previously developed a 'Serological Assay based on a Tri-part split-NanoLuc® (SATiN)' to detect antibodies that bind to the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2. Here, we expand on our previous work and describe a reconfigured version of the SATiN assay, called Neutralization SATiN (Neu-SATiN), which measures neutralization activity of antibodies directly from convalescent or vaccinated sera. The results obtained with our assay and other neutralization assays are comparable but with significantly shorter preparation and run time for Neu-SATiN. As the assay is modular, we further demonstrate that Neu-SATiN enables rapid assessment of the effectiveness of vaccines and level of protection against existing SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and can therefore be readily adapted for emerging variants., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Numerous serology assays are available for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies but are limited in that only 1 or 2 target antigen(s) can be tested at a time. Here, we describe a novel multiplex assay that simultaneously detects and quantifies IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 antigens, spike (S), nucleocapsid (N), receptor-binding domain (RBD), and N-terminal domain (NTD) in a single well., Methods: Sensitivity was determined using samples (n = 124) from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive individuals. Prepandemic (n = 100) and non-COVID respiratory infection positive samples (n = 100) were used to evaluate specificity. Samples were analyzed using COVID-19 IgG multiplex serology assay from Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) and using commercial platforms from Abbott, EUROIMMUN, and Siemens., Results: At >14 days post-PCR, MSD assay displayed >98.0% sensitivity [S 100% (95% CI 98.0%-100.0%); N 98.0% (95% CI 97.2%-98.9%); RBD 94.1% (95% CI 92.6%-95.6%); NTD 98.0% (95% CI, 97.2%-98.9%)] and 99% specificity (95% CI 99.3%-99.7%) for antibodies to all 4 antigens. Parallel assessment of antibodies to more than 1 antigen improved the sensitivity to 100% (95% CI 98.0%-100.0%) while maintaining 98% (95% CI 97.6%-98.4%) specificity regardless of the combinations used. When AU/mL concentrations of IgG antibodies from the MSD assay were compared against the corresponding IgG signals acquired from the single target commercial assays, the following correlations were observed: Abbott (vs MSD N, R2 = 0.73), Siemens (vs MSD RBD, R2 = 0.92), and EUROIMMUN (vs MSD S, R2 = 0.82)., Conclusion: MSD assay offers an accurate and a comprehensive assessment of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with higher sensitivity and equivalent specificity compared to the commercial IgG serology assays., (© American Association for Clinical Chemistry 2021. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and is responsible for nearly 6 million deaths worldwide in the past 2 years. Machine learning (ML) models could help physicians in identifying high-risk individuals., Objectives: To study the use of ML models for COVID-19 prediction outcomes using clinical data and a combination of clinical and metabolic data, measured in a metabolomics facility from a public university., Methods: A total of 154 patients were included in the study. "Basic profile" was considered with clinical and demographic variables (33 variables), whereas in the "extended profile," metabolomic and immunological variables were also considered (156 characteristics). A selection of features was carried out for each of the profiles with a genetic algorithm (GA) and random forest models were trained and tested to predict each of the stages of COVID-19., Results: The model based on extended profile was more useful in early stages of the disease. Models based on clinical data were preferred for predicting severe and critical illness and death. ML detected trimethylamine N-oxide, lipid mediators, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio as important variables., Conclusions: ML and GAs provided adequate models to predict COVID-19 outcomes in patients with different severity grades., (Copyright: © 2022 Permanyer.)

We aimed to generate an unbiased estimate of the incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in 4 urban counties in Utah, USA. We used a multistage sampling design to randomly select community-representative participants >12 years of age. During May 4-June 30, 2020, we collected serum samples and survey responses from 8,108 persons belonging to 5,125 households. We used a qualitative chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay to detect SARS-CoV-2 IgG in serum samples. We estimated the overall seroprevalence to be 0.8%. The estimated seroprevalence-to-case count ratio was 2.5, corresponding to a detection fraction of 40%. Only 0.2% of participants from whom we collected nasopharyngeal swab samples had SARS-CoV-2-positive reverse transcription PCR results. SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence during the study was low, and prevalence of PCR-positive cases was even lower. The comparatively high SARS-CoV-2 detection rate (40%) demonstrates the effectiveness of Utah's testing strategy and public health response.

Context.—: Emerging evidence shows correlation between the presence of neutralization antibodies (nAbs) and protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Currently available commercial serology assays lack the ability to specifically identify nAbs. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based nAb assay (GenScript cPass neutralization antibody assay) has recently received emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration., Objective.—: To evaluate the performance characteristics of this assay and compare and correlate it with the commercial assays that detect SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG)., Design.—: Specimens from SARS-COV-2 infected patients (n = 124), healthy donors obtained prepandemic (n = 100), and patients with non-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) respiratory infections (n = 92) were analyzed using this assay. Samples with residual volume were also tested on 3 commercial serology platforms (Abbott, Euroimmun, Siemens). Twenty-eight randomly selected specimens from patients with COVID-19 and 10 healthy controls were subjected to a plaque reduction neutralization test., Results.—: The cPass assay exhibited 96.1% (95% CI, 94.9%-97.3%) sensitivity (at >14 days post-positive PCR), 100% (95% CI, 98.0%-100.0%) specificity, and zero cross-reactivity for the presence of non-COVID-19 respiratory infections. When compared with the plaque reduction assay, 97.4% (95% CI, 96.2%-98.5%) qualitative agreement and a positive correlation (R2 = 0.76) was observed. Comparison of IgG signals from each of the commercial assays with the nAb results from plaque reduction neutralization test/cPass assays displayed greater than 94.7% qualitative agreement and correlations with R2 = 0.43/0.68 (Abbott), R2 = 0.57/0.85 (Euroimmun), and R2 = 0.39/0.63 (Siemens), respectively., Conclusions.—: The combined data support the use of cPass assay for accurate detection of the nAb response. Positive IgG results from commercial assays associated reasonably with nAbs presence and can serve as a substitute.

Viral sepsis has been proposed as an accurate term to describe all multisystemic dysregulations and clinical findings in severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients. The adoption of this term may help the implementation of more accurate strategies of early diagnosis, prognosis, and in-hospital treatment. We accurately quantified 110 metabolites using targeted metabolomics, and 13 cytokines/chemokines in plasma samples of 121 COVID-19 patients with different levels of severity, and 37 non-COVID-19 individuals. Analyses revealed an integrated host-dependent dysregulation of inflammatory cytokines, neutrophil activation chemokines, glycolysis, mitochondrial metabolism, amino acid metabolism, polyamine synthesis, and lipid metabolism typical of sepsis processes distinctive of a mild disease. Dysregulated metabolites and cytokines/chemokines showed differential correlation patterns in mild and critically ill patients, indicating a crosstalk between metabolism and hyperinflammation. Using multivariate analysis, powerful models for diagnosis and prognosis of COVID-19 induced sepsis were generated, as well as for mortality prediction among septic patients. A metabolite panel made of kynurenine/tryptophan ratio, IL-6, LysoPC a C18:2, and phenylalanine discriminated non-COVID-19 from sepsis patients with an area under the curve (AUC (95%CI)) of 0.991 (0.986-0.995), with sensitivity of 0.978 (0.963-0.992) and specificity of 0.920 (0.890-0.949). The panel that included C10:2, IL-6, NLR, and C5 discriminated mild patients from sepsis patients with an AUC (95%CI) of 0.965 (0.952-0.977), with sensitivity of 0.993(0.984-1.000) and specificity of 0.851 (0.815-0.887). The panel with citric acid, LysoPC a C28:1, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and kynurenine/tryptophan ratio discriminated severe patients from sepsis patients with an AUC (95%CI) of 0.829 (0.800-0.858), with sensitivity of 0.738 (0.695-0.781) and specificity of 0.781 (0.735-0.827). Septic patients who survived were different from those that did not survive with a model consisting of hippuric acid, along with the presence of Type II diabetes, with an AUC (95%CI) of 0.831 (0.788-0.874), with sensitivity of 0.765 (0.697-0.832) and specificity of 0.817 (0.770-0.865)., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Research exploring the development and outcome of COVID-19 infections has led to the need to find better diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. This cross-sectional study used targeted metabolomics to identify potential COVID-19 biomarkers that predicted the course of the illness by assessing 110 endogenous plasma metabolites from individuals admitted to a local hospital for diagnosis/treatment. Patients were classified into four groups (≈ 40 each) according to standard polymerase chain reaction (PCR) COVID-19 testing and disease course: PCR-/controls (i.e., non-COVID controls), PCR+/not-hospitalized, PCR+/hospitalized, and PCR+/intubated. Blood samples were collected within 2 days of admission/PCR testing. Metabolite concentration data, demographic data and clinical data were used to propose biomarkers and develop optimal regression models for the diagnosis and prognosis of COVID-19. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC; 95% CI) was used to assess each models' predictive value. A panel that included the kynurenine: tryptophan ratio, lysoPC a C26:0, and pyruvic acid discriminated non-COVID controls from PCR+/not-hospitalized (AUC = 0.947; 95% CI 0.931-0.962). A second panel consisting of C10:2, butyric acid, and pyruvic acid distinguished PCR+/not-hospitalized from PCR+/hospitalized and PCR+/intubated (AUC = 0.975; 95% CI 0.968-0.983). Only lysoPC a C28:0 differentiated PCR+/hospitalized from PCR+/intubated patients (AUC = 0.770; 95% CI 0.736-0.803). If additional studies with targeted metabolomics confirm the diagnostic value of these plasma biomarkers, such panels could eventually be of clinical use in medical practice., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: As serologic assays for SARS-CoV-2 become more widely utilized, it is important to understand their performance characteristics and correlation with neutralizing antibodies. We evaluated 3 commonly used SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays (Abbott, DiaSorin, and EUROIMMUN) for clinical sensitivity, specificity, and correlation with neutralizing antibodies, and then compared antibody kinetics during the acute phase of infection., Methods: Three panels of samples were tested on every assay. Sensitivity was assessed using a panel of 35 specimens serially collected from 7 patients with RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19. Specificity was determined using 100 sera samples collected in 2018 from healthy individuals prior to the outbreak. Analytical specificity was determined using a panel of 37 samples from individuals with respiratory illnesses other than COVID-19., Results: Clinical sensitivity was 91.43% (95% CI 76.94-98.20%) for Abbott, and 88.57% (95% CI 73.26-96.80%) for both DiaSorin and EUROIMMUN. Clinical specificity was 99.00% (95% CI 94.55-99.97%) for Abbott and DiaSorin and 94.00% (95% CI 87.40-97.77%) for EUROIMMUN. The IgG assays demonstrated good qualitative agreement (minimum of 94%) and good correlation between the quantitative result for each combination of assays (r2 ≥ 0.90). The neutralizing antibody response did not necessarily follow the same temporal kinetics as the IgG response and did not necessarily correlate with IgG values., Conclusion: The 3 IgG antibody assays demonstrated comparable performance characteristics. Importantly, a qualitative positive IgG result obtained with any of the assays was associated with the presence of neutralizing antibodies; however, neutralizing antibody concentrations did not correlate well with signal to cutoff ratios., (© American Association for Clinical Chemistry 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Virus neutralization by antibodies is an important prognostic factor in many viral diseases. To easily and rapidly measure titers of neutralizing antibodies in serum or plasma, we developed pseudovirion particles composed of the spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 incorporated onto murine leukemia virus capsids and a modified minimal murine leukemia virus genome encoding firefly luciferase. This assay design is intended for use in laboratories with biocontainment level 2 and therefore circumvents the need for the biocontainment level 3 that would be required for replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 virus. To validate the pseudovirion assay, we set up comparisons with other available antibody tests including those from Abbott, Euroimmun and Siemens, using archived, known samples., Results: 11 out of 12 SARS-CoV-2-infected patient serum samples showed neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2-spike pseudotyped MLV viruses, with neutralizing titers-50 (NT 50 ) that ranged from 1:25 to 1:1,417. Five historical samples from patients hospitalized for severe influenza infection in 2016 tested negative in the neutralization assay (NT 50  < 25). Three serum samples with high neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2/MLV pseudoviruses showed no detectable neutralizing activity (NT 50  < 25) against SARS-CoV-1/MLV pseudovirions. We also compared the semiquantitative Siemens SARS-CoV-2 IgG test, which measures binding of IgG to recombinantly expressed receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein with the neutralization titers obtained in the pseudovirion assay and the results show high concordance between the two tests (R 2  = 0.9344)., Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 spike/MLV pseudovirions provide a practical means of assessing neutralizing activity of antibodies in serum or plasma from infected patients under laboratory conditions consistent with biocontainment level 2. This assay offers promise also in evaluating immunogenicity of spike glycoprotein-based candidate vaccines in the near future.

The MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2 are highly pathogenic viruses that can cause severe pneumonic diseases in humans. Unfortunately, there is a non-available effective treatment to combat these viruses. Domain-motif interactions (DMIs) are an essential means by which viruses mimic and hijack the biological processes of host cells. To disentangle how viruses achieve this process can help to develop new rational therapies. Data mining was performed to obtain DMIs stored as regular expressions (regexp) in 3DID and ELM databases. The mined regexp information was mapped on the coronaviruses' proteomes. Most motifs on viral protein that could interact with human proteins are shared across the coronavirus species, indicating that molecular mimicry is a common strategy for coronavirus infection. Enrichment ontology analysis for protein domains showed a shared biological process and molecular function terms related to carbon source utilization and potassium channel regulation. Some of the mapped motifs were nested on B, and T cell epitopes, suggesting that it could be as an alternative way for reverse vaccinology. The information obtained in this study could be used for further theoretic and experimental explorations on coronavirus infection mechanism and development of medicines for treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spain has been one the most affected countries by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic [[1]]. Eighty-five patients (52%) were in watch & wait (W&W), 34 (21%) had been previously treated, whereas 46 patients (28%) were currently on CLL treatment, mainly with BTK inhibitors (BTKi) (n = 34) and venetoclax (n = 7). Of note, three out of the four young CLL patients that died were untreated and lack comorbidities, suggesting a negative effect of CLL in those patients. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Understanding and monitoring the demographics of SARS-CoV-2 infection can inform strategies for prevention. Surveillance monitoring has suggested that the age distribution of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 has changed since the pandemic began, but no formal analysis has been performed. Methods: Retrospective review of SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing results from a national reference laboratory was performed. Result distributions by age and positivity were compared between early period (March-April 2020) and late periods (June-July 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, a sub-analysis compared changing age distributions between inpatients and outpatients. Results: There were 277,601 test results of which 19320 (7.0%) were positive. The median age of infected people declined over time (p < 0.0005). In March-April, the median age of positive people was 40.8 years (Interquartile range (IQR): 29.0–54.1). In June-July, the median age of positive people was 35.8 years (IQR: 24.0–50.2). The positivity rate of patients under 50 increased from 6.0 to 10.6 percent and the positivity rate for those over 50 decreased from 6.3 to 5.0 percent between the early and late periods. The trend was only observed for outpatient populations. Conclusions: We confirm that there is a trend toward decreasing age among persons with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, but that these trends seem to be specific to the outpatient population. Overall, this suggests that observed age-related trends are driven by changes in testing patterns rather than true changes in the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This calls for caution in interpretation of routine surveillance data until testing patterns stabilize. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Differences in clinical manifestations, immune response, metabolic alterations, and outcomes (including disease severity and mortality) between men and women with COVID-19 have been reported since the pandemic outbreak, making it necessary to implement sex-specific biomarkers for disease diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to identify sex-associated differences in COVID-19 patients by means of a genetic algorithm (GALGO) and machine learning, employing support vector machine (SVM) and logistic regression (LR) for the data analysis. Both algorithms identified kynurenine and hemoglobin as the most important variables to distinguish between men and women with COVID-19. LR and SVM identified C10:1, cough, and lysoPC a 14:0 to discriminate between men with COVID-19 from men without, with LR being the best model. In the case of women with COVID-19 vs. women without, SVM had a higher performance, and both models identified a higher number of variables, including 10:2, lysoPC a C26:0, lysoPC a C28:0, alpha-ketoglutaric acid, lactic acid, cough, fever, anosmia, and dysgeusia. Our results demonstrate that differences in sexes have implications in the diagnosis and outcome of the disease. Further, genetic and machine learning algorithms are useful tools to predict sex-associated differences in COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Background: Latin America has been harshly hit by SARS-CoV-2, but reporting from this region is still incomplete. This study aimed at identifying and comparing clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 at different stages of disease severity. (2) Methods: Cross-sectional multicentric study. Individuals with nasopharyngeal PCR were categorized into four groups: (1) negative, (2) positive, not hospitalized, (3) positive, hospitalized with/without supplementary oxygen, and (4) positive, intubated. Clinical and laboratory data were compared, using group 1 as the reference. Multivariate multinomial logistic regression was used to compare adjusted odds ratios. (3) Results: Nine variables remained in the model, explaining 76% of the variability. Men had increased odds, from 1.90 (95%CI 0.87–4.15) in the comparison of 2 vs. 1, to 3.66 (1.12–11.9) in 4 vs. 1. Diabetes and obesity were strong predictors. For diabetes, the odds for groups 2, 3, and 4 were 1.56 (0.29–8.16), 12.8 (2.50–65.8), and 16.1 (2.87–90.2); for obesity, these were 0.79 (0.31–2.05), 3.38 (1.04–10.9), and 4.10 (1.16–14.4), respectively. Fever, myalgia/arthralgia, cough, dyspnea, and neutrophilia were associated with the more severe COVID-19 group. Anosmia/dysgeusia were more likely to occur in group 2 (25.5; 2.51–259). (4) Conclusion: The results point to relevant differences in clinical and laboratory features of COVID-19 by level of severity that can be used in medical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]