Exposure to avian coronavirus vaccines is associated with increased levels of SARS-CoV-2-cross-reactive antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Although avian coronavirus infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) and SARS-CoV-2 belong to different genera of the Coronaviridae family, exposure to IBV may result in the development of cross-reactive antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 due to homologous epitopes. We aimed to investigate whether antibody responses to IBV cross-react with SARS-CoV-2 in poultry farm personnel who are occupationally exposed to aerosolized IBV vaccines. METHODS: We analyzed sera from poultry farm personnel, COVID-19 patients, and pre-pandemic controls. IgG levels against the SARS-CoV-2 antigens S1, RBD, S2, and N and peptides corresponding to the SARS-CoV-2 ORF3a, N, and S proteins as well as whole virus antigens of the four major S1-genotypes 4/91, IS/1494/06, M41, and D274 of IBV were investigated by in-house ELISAs. Moreover, live-virus neutralization test (VNT) was performed. RESULTS: A subgroup of poultry farm personnel showed elevated levels of specific IgG for all tested SARS-CoV-2 antigens compared with pre-pandemic controls. Moreover, poultry farm personnel, COVID-19 patients, and pre-pandemic controls showed specific IgG antibodies against IBV strains. These antibody titers were higher in long-term vaccine implementers. We observed a strong correlation between IBV-specific IgG and SARS-CoV-2 S1-, RBD-, S2-, and N-specific IgG in poultry farm personnel compared with pre-pandemic controls and COVID-19 patients. However, no neutralization was observed for these cross-reactive antibodies from poultry farm personnel using the VNT. CONCLUSION: We report here for the first time the detection of cross-reactive IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 antigens in humans exposed to IBV vaccines. These findings may be useful for further studies on the adaptive immunity against COVID-19.

Molnupiravir combined with different repurposed drugs further inhibits SARS-CoV-2 infection in human nasal epithelium in vitro.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a worldwide pandemic with unprecedented economic and societal impact. Currently, several vaccines are available and multitudes of antiviral treatments have been proposed and tested. Although many of the vaccines show clinical efficacy, they are not equally accessible worldwide. Additionally, due to the continuous emergence of new variants and generally short duration of immunity, the development of effective antiviral treatments remains of the utmost importance. Since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, substantial efforts have been undertaken to repurpose existing drugs for accelerated clinical testing and emergency use authorizations. However, drug-repurposing studies using cellular assays often identify hits that later prove ineffective clinically, highlighting the need for more complex screening models. To this end, we evaluated the activity of single compounds that have either been tested clinically or already undergone extensive preclinical profiling, using a standardized in vitro model of human nasal epithelium. Furthermore, we also evaluated drug combinations based on a sub-maximal concentration of molnupiravir. We report the antiviral activity of 95 single compounds and 30 combinations. We show that only a few single agents are highly effective in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 replication while selected drug combinations containing 10 µM molnupiravir boosted antiviral activity compared to single compound treatment. These data indicate that molnupiravir-based combinations are worthy of further consideration as potential treatment strategies against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in clinical practice: A comparative diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Serological tests are a powerful tool in the monitoring of infectious diseases and the detection of host immunity. However, manufacturers often provide diagnostic accuracy data generated through biased studies, and the performance in clinical practice is essentially unclear. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of various serological testing strategies for (a) identification of patients with previous coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and (b) prediction of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in real-life clinical settings. METHODS: We prospectively included 2573 consecutive health-care workers and 1085 inpatients with suspected or possible previous COVID-19 at a Swiss University Hospital. Various serological immunoassays based on different analytical techniques (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, ELISA; chemiluminescence immunoassay, CLIA; electrochemiluminescence immunoassay, ECLIA; and lateral flow immunoassay, LFI), epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 (nucleocapsid, N; receptor-binding domain, RBD; extended RBD, RBD+; S1 or S2 domain of the spike [S] protein, S1/S2), and antibody subtypes (IgG, pan-Ig) were conducted. A positive real-time PCR test from a nasopharyngeal swab was defined as previous COVID-19. Neutralization assays with live SARS-CoV-2 were performed in a subgroup of patients to assess neutralization activity (n = 201). RESULTS: The sensitivity to detect patients with previous COVID-19 was ≥85% in anti-N ECLIA (86.8%) and anti-S1 ELISA (86.2%). Sensitivity was 84.7% in anti-S1/S2 CLIA, 84.0% in anti-RBD+LFI, 81.0% in anti-N CLIA, 79.2% in anti-RBD ELISA, and 65.6% in anti-N ELISA. The specificity was 98.4% in anti-N ECLIA, 98.3% in anti-N CLIA, 98.2% in anti-S1 ELISA, 97.7% in anti-N ELISA, 97.6% in anti-S1/S2 CLIA, 97.2% in anti-RBD ELISA, and 96.1% in anti-RBD+LFI. The sensitivity to detect neutralizing antibodies was ≥85% in anti-S1 ELISA (92.7%), anti-N ECLIA (91.7%), anti-S1/S2 CLIA (90.3%), anti-RBD+LFI (87.9%), and anti-RBD ELISA (85.8%). Sensitivity was 84.1% in anti-N CLIA and 66.2% in anti-N ELISA. The specificity was ≥97% in anti-N CLIA (100%), anti-S1/S2 CLIA (97.7%), and anti-RBD+LFI (97.9%). Specificity was 95.9% in anti-RBD ELISA, 93.0% in anti-N ECLIA, 92% in anti-S1 ELISA, and 65.3% in anti-N ELISA. Diagnostic accuracy measures were consistent among subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies varied remarkably in clinical practice, and the sensitivity to identify patients with previous COVID-19 deviated substantially from the manufacturer's specifications. The data presented here should be considered when using such tests to estimate the infection burden within a specific population and determine the likelihood of protection against re-infection.

No neutralizing effect of pre-existing tick-borne encephalitis virus antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2: a prospective healthcare worker study.

Certain immunizations including vaccination against tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) have been suggested to confer cross-protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Within a prospective healthcare worker (HCW) cohort, we assessed the potentially protective role of anti-TBEV antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among 3352 HCW, those with ≥ 1 previous TBEV vaccination (n = 2018, 60%) showed a reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion (adjusted odds ratio: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.7-1.0, P = 0.02). However, laboratory testing of a subgroup of 26 baseline and follow-up samples did not demonstrate any neutralizing effect of anti-TBEV antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in live-virus neutralization assay. However, we observed significantly higher anti-TBEV antibody titers in follow-up samples of participants with previous TBEV vaccination compared to baseline, both TBEV neutralizing (p = 0.001) and total IgG (P < 0.0001), irrespective of SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Based on these data, we conclude that the observed association of previous TBEV vaccination and reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection is likely due to residual confounding factors. The increase in TBEV follow-up antibody titers can be explained by natural TBEV exposure or potential non-specific immune activation upon exposure to various pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2. We believe that these findings, although negative, contribute to the current knowledge on potential cross-immunity against SARS-CoV-2 from previous immunizations.

In vitro virucidal activity of Echinaforce®, an Echinacea purpurea preparation, against coronaviruses, including common cold coronavirus 229E and SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Coronaviruses (CoVs) were long thought to only cause mild respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms in humans but outbreaks of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS)-CoV, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-CoV-1, and the recently identified SARS-CoV-2 have cemented their zoonotic potential and their capacity to cause serious morbidity and mortality, with case fatality rates ranging from 4 to 35%. Currently, no specific prophylaxis or treatment is available for CoV infections. Therefore we investigated the virucidal and antiviral potential of Echinacea purpurea (Echinaforce®) against human coronavirus (HCoV) 229E, highly pathogenic MERS- and SARS-CoVs, as well as the newly identified SARS-CoV-2, in vitro. METHODS: To evaluate the antiviral potential of the extract, we pre-treated virus particles and cells and evaluated remaining infectivity by limited dilution. Furthermore, we exposed cells to the extract after infection to further evaluate its potential as a prophylaxis and treatment against coronaviruses. We also determined the protective effect of Echinaforce® in re-constituted nasal epithelium. RESULTS: In the current study, we found that HCoV-229E was irreversibly inactivated when exposed to Echinaforce® at 3.2 µg/ml IC50. Pre-treatment of cell lines, however, did not inhibit infection with HCoV-229E and post-infection treatment had only a marginal effect on virus propagation at 50 µg/ml. However, we did observe a protective effect in an organotypic respiratory cell culture system by exposing pre-treated respiratory epithelium to droplets of HCoV-229E, imitating a natural infection. The observed virucidal activity of Echinaforce® was not restricted to common cold coronaviruses, as both SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoVs were inactivated at comparable concentrations. Finally, the causative agent of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 was also inactivated upon treatment with 50µg/ml Echinaforce®. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that Echinaforce® is virucidal against HCoV-229E, upon direct contact and in an organotypic cell culture model. Furthermore, MERS-CoV and both SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 were inactivated at similar concentrations of the extract. Therefore we hypothesize that Echinacea purpurea preparations, such as Echinaforce®, could be effective as prophylactic treatment for all CoVs due to their structural similarities.

Titers of Neutralizing Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 Are Independent of Symptoms of Non-Severe COVID-19 in Young Adults.

Neutralizing antibodies are an important part of the humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. It is currently unclear to what extent such antibodies are produced after non-severe disease or asymptomatic infection. We studied a cluster of SARS-CoV-2 infections among a homogeneous population of 332 predominantly male Swiss soldiers and determined the neutralizing antibody response with a serum neutralization assay using a recombinant SARS-CoV-2-GFP. All patients with non-severe COVID-19 showed a swift humoral response within two weeks after the onset of symptoms, which remained stable for the duration of the study. One month after the outbreak, titers in COVID-19 convalescents did not differ from the titers of asymptomatically infected individuals. Furthermore, symptoms of COVID-19 did not correlate with neutralizing antibody titers. Therefore, we conclude that asymptomatic infection can induce the same humoral immunity as non-severe COVID-19 in young adults.

Author Correction: In vitro virucidal activity of Echinaforce®, an Echinacea purpurea preparation, against coronaviruses, including common cold coronavirus 229E and SARS-CoV-2.

The original version of the acknowledgement unfortunately contained a mistake.